User login
Treatment-Resistant Depression Linked to Increased Mortality
TOPLINE:
Treatment-resistant major depression (TRD) is associated with a 17% higher risk for all-cause mortality than non-TRD major depressive disorder (MDD), a new study shows. The increased mortality risk was driven largely by suicide and accidental overdose, which were nearly twice as high among people whose depression didn’t improve after two treatments.
METHODOLOGY:
- Data on 176,942 individuals diagnosed with MDD and treated with an antidepressant (median age at diagnosis, 40 years; 63% women) were obtained from Finnish nationwide registers.
- About 11% of the participants had TRD, defined as having more than two adequate treatment trials of at least 28 days, each within 2 years from the index antidepressant prescription.
- The outcomes were all-cause and cause-specific mortality, with demographic characteristics, psychiatric comorbidities, and treatment history included as covariates.
- The median follow-up period was 8.9 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- Median time to TRD was 8 months, and 959 and 7662 deaths were observed in the TRD and non-TRD groups, respectively.
- All-cause mortality was 17% higher among patients with TRD than among those with non-TRD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.25) because of higher mortality to external causes.
- Mortalities because of suicides (aHR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.64-2.20) and accidental poisonings (aHR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.48-2.22) were almost double in the TRD group, compared with the non-TRD group.
- No significant difference in mortality due to natural causes was observed between the TRD and non-TRD groups.
IN PRACTICE:
“The markedly increased mortality due to suicides and accidental overdoses suggests that persons with TRD may experience higher-intensity symptoms and more severe suicidal ideation than persons with non-TRD major depression,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Tapio T. Gustafsson, University of Eastern Finland, Niuvanniemi Hospital, Kuopio, Finland. It was published online on September 11, 2024, in The Journal of Affective Disorders.
LIMITATIONS:
The definition of TRD lacked consensus. The study used routine data to define TRD, which may not have captured all relevant clinical nuances. Additionally, the reasons for medication changes were unavailable.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine and Niuvanniemi Hospital, with support from the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, and two are employees of Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Treatment-resistant major depression (TRD) is associated with a 17% higher risk for all-cause mortality than non-TRD major depressive disorder (MDD), a new study shows. The increased mortality risk was driven largely by suicide and accidental overdose, which were nearly twice as high among people whose depression didn’t improve after two treatments.
METHODOLOGY:
- Data on 176,942 individuals diagnosed with MDD and treated with an antidepressant (median age at diagnosis, 40 years; 63% women) were obtained from Finnish nationwide registers.
- About 11% of the participants had TRD, defined as having more than two adequate treatment trials of at least 28 days, each within 2 years from the index antidepressant prescription.
- The outcomes were all-cause and cause-specific mortality, with demographic characteristics, psychiatric comorbidities, and treatment history included as covariates.
- The median follow-up period was 8.9 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- Median time to TRD was 8 months, and 959 and 7662 deaths were observed in the TRD and non-TRD groups, respectively.
- All-cause mortality was 17% higher among patients with TRD than among those with non-TRD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.25) because of higher mortality to external causes.
- Mortalities because of suicides (aHR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.64-2.20) and accidental poisonings (aHR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.48-2.22) were almost double in the TRD group, compared with the non-TRD group.
- No significant difference in mortality due to natural causes was observed between the TRD and non-TRD groups.
IN PRACTICE:
“The markedly increased mortality due to suicides and accidental overdoses suggests that persons with TRD may experience higher-intensity symptoms and more severe suicidal ideation than persons with non-TRD major depression,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Tapio T. Gustafsson, University of Eastern Finland, Niuvanniemi Hospital, Kuopio, Finland. It was published online on September 11, 2024, in The Journal of Affective Disorders.
LIMITATIONS:
The definition of TRD lacked consensus. The study used routine data to define TRD, which may not have captured all relevant clinical nuances. Additionally, the reasons for medication changes were unavailable.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine and Niuvanniemi Hospital, with support from the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, and two are employees of Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Treatment-resistant major depression (TRD) is associated with a 17% higher risk for all-cause mortality than non-TRD major depressive disorder (MDD), a new study shows. The increased mortality risk was driven largely by suicide and accidental overdose, which were nearly twice as high among people whose depression didn’t improve after two treatments.
METHODOLOGY:
- Data on 176,942 individuals diagnosed with MDD and treated with an antidepressant (median age at diagnosis, 40 years; 63% women) were obtained from Finnish nationwide registers.
- About 11% of the participants had TRD, defined as having more than two adequate treatment trials of at least 28 days, each within 2 years from the index antidepressant prescription.
- The outcomes were all-cause and cause-specific mortality, with demographic characteristics, psychiatric comorbidities, and treatment history included as covariates.
- The median follow-up period was 8.9 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- Median time to TRD was 8 months, and 959 and 7662 deaths were observed in the TRD and non-TRD groups, respectively.
- All-cause mortality was 17% higher among patients with TRD than among those with non-TRD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.25) because of higher mortality to external causes.
- Mortalities because of suicides (aHR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.64-2.20) and accidental poisonings (aHR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.48-2.22) were almost double in the TRD group, compared with the non-TRD group.
- No significant difference in mortality due to natural causes was observed between the TRD and non-TRD groups.
IN PRACTICE:
“The markedly increased mortality due to suicides and accidental overdoses suggests that persons with TRD may experience higher-intensity symptoms and more severe suicidal ideation than persons with non-TRD major depression,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Tapio T. Gustafsson, University of Eastern Finland, Niuvanniemi Hospital, Kuopio, Finland. It was published online on September 11, 2024, in The Journal of Affective Disorders.
LIMITATIONS:
The definition of TRD lacked consensus. The study used routine data to define TRD, which may not have captured all relevant clinical nuances. Additionally, the reasons for medication changes were unavailable.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine and Niuvanniemi Hospital, with support from the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, and two are employees of Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Screening Identifies Familial Risk for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in Large Health System
TOPLINE:
Electronic health record (EHR)–derived family history identified 29,913 patients with familial risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, but 82% had no evidence of genetic testing. Seven-question family history screening (FHS7)–positive status was associated with a threefold increase in BRCA1/2 positivity and a 44% increase in cancer risk among women.
METHODOLOGY:
- A cross-sectional and retrospective cohort analysis used EHR data from Renown Health in northern Nevada. The study period spanned from January 1, 2018, to February 1, 2024, with data on demographic variables, healthcare utilization, and cancer diagnoses.
- The study aimed to use the FHS7 to identify patients meeting family history criteria for genetic testing (familial risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) in their EHRs; patients meeting the FHS7 criteria were deemed to be FHS7-positive.
- A total of 835,727 patients aged 18-79 years were included, with genotype data available for 38,003 participants from the Healthy Nevada Project, which notified 330 individuals with BRCA1/2 variants of their genetic risk.
- The primary outcomes were the presence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in specific genes and the diagnosis of cancer.
TAKEAWAY:
- FHS7-positive status was associated with a 3.34-fold increase in BRCA1/2 positivity among female participants and a 3.35-fold increase among male participants (95% CI, 2.48-4.47 and 1.93-5.56, respectively).
- Female FHS7-positive participants had a 1.62-fold increase in CHEK2 positivity and a 2.84-fold increase in PALB2 positivity (95% CI, 1.05-2.43 and 1.23-6.16, respectively).
- Age-adjusted cancer incidence rates were higher for FHS7-positive patients, with 367.2 cases per 100,000 per year for women and 309.9 cases per 100,000 per year for men.
- The number needed to test to detect one BRCA1/2-positive patient decreased from 128 to 53 for women and from 119 to 42 for men when prescreening with FHS7.
IN PRACTICE:
“EHR-derived FHS7 identified thousands of patients with familial risk for breast cancer, indicating a substantial gap in genetic testing,” the study authors wrote. “Survey results suggest that most patients who are FHS7-positive in their EHR truly meet family history criteria, but that EHR-derived FHS7 may miss many patients who would be FHS7-positive if approached with a direct questionnaire,” the author wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Daniel Kiser, MS, University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s observational design may introduce self-selection biases, particularly among Healthy Nevada Project participants. The 21.8% response rate to the survey suggests potential self-selection among respondents. The tendency of less healthy patients to have more data available in their EHRs could influence the authors’ analysis of cancer incidence rates, despite adjustments for healthcare utilization levels.
DISCLOSURES:
Daniel Kiser and Joseph J. Grzymski, PhD, reported holding patents outside the submitted work. Dr. Grzymski also disclosed receiving grants from Gilead Sciences. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Electronic health record (EHR)–derived family history identified 29,913 patients with familial risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, but 82% had no evidence of genetic testing. Seven-question family history screening (FHS7)–positive status was associated with a threefold increase in BRCA1/2 positivity and a 44% increase in cancer risk among women.
METHODOLOGY:
- A cross-sectional and retrospective cohort analysis used EHR data from Renown Health in northern Nevada. The study period spanned from January 1, 2018, to February 1, 2024, with data on demographic variables, healthcare utilization, and cancer diagnoses.
- The study aimed to use the FHS7 to identify patients meeting family history criteria for genetic testing (familial risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) in their EHRs; patients meeting the FHS7 criteria were deemed to be FHS7-positive.
- A total of 835,727 patients aged 18-79 years were included, with genotype data available for 38,003 participants from the Healthy Nevada Project, which notified 330 individuals with BRCA1/2 variants of their genetic risk.
- The primary outcomes were the presence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in specific genes and the diagnosis of cancer.
TAKEAWAY:
- FHS7-positive status was associated with a 3.34-fold increase in BRCA1/2 positivity among female participants and a 3.35-fold increase among male participants (95% CI, 2.48-4.47 and 1.93-5.56, respectively).
- Female FHS7-positive participants had a 1.62-fold increase in CHEK2 positivity and a 2.84-fold increase in PALB2 positivity (95% CI, 1.05-2.43 and 1.23-6.16, respectively).
- Age-adjusted cancer incidence rates were higher for FHS7-positive patients, with 367.2 cases per 100,000 per year for women and 309.9 cases per 100,000 per year for men.
- The number needed to test to detect one BRCA1/2-positive patient decreased from 128 to 53 for women and from 119 to 42 for men when prescreening with FHS7.
IN PRACTICE:
“EHR-derived FHS7 identified thousands of patients with familial risk for breast cancer, indicating a substantial gap in genetic testing,” the study authors wrote. “Survey results suggest that most patients who are FHS7-positive in their EHR truly meet family history criteria, but that EHR-derived FHS7 may miss many patients who would be FHS7-positive if approached with a direct questionnaire,” the author wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Daniel Kiser, MS, University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s observational design may introduce self-selection biases, particularly among Healthy Nevada Project participants. The 21.8% response rate to the survey suggests potential self-selection among respondents. The tendency of less healthy patients to have more data available in their EHRs could influence the authors’ analysis of cancer incidence rates, despite adjustments for healthcare utilization levels.
DISCLOSURES:
Daniel Kiser and Joseph J. Grzymski, PhD, reported holding patents outside the submitted work. Dr. Grzymski also disclosed receiving grants from Gilead Sciences. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Electronic health record (EHR)–derived family history identified 29,913 patients with familial risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, but 82% had no evidence of genetic testing. Seven-question family history screening (FHS7)–positive status was associated with a threefold increase in BRCA1/2 positivity and a 44% increase in cancer risk among women.
METHODOLOGY:
- A cross-sectional and retrospective cohort analysis used EHR data from Renown Health in northern Nevada. The study period spanned from January 1, 2018, to February 1, 2024, with data on demographic variables, healthcare utilization, and cancer diagnoses.
- The study aimed to use the FHS7 to identify patients meeting family history criteria for genetic testing (familial risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) in their EHRs; patients meeting the FHS7 criteria were deemed to be FHS7-positive.
- A total of 835,727 patients aged 18-79 years were included, with genotype data available for 38,003 participants from the Healthy Nevada Project, which notified 330 individuals with BRCA1/2 variants of their genetic risk.
- The primary outcomes were the presence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in specific genes and the diagnosis of cancer.
TAKEAWAY:
- FHS7-positive status was associated with a 3.34-fold increase in BRCA1/2 positivity among female participants and a 3.35-fold increase among male participants (95% CI, 2.48-4.47 and 1.93-5.56, respectively).
- Female FHS7-positive participants had a 1.62-fold increase in CHEK2 positivity and a 2.84-fold increase in PALB2 positivity (95% CI, 1.05-2.43 and 1.23-6.16, respectively).
- Age-adjusted cancer incidence rates were higher for FHS7-positive patients, with 367.2 cases per 100,000 per year for women and 309.9 cases per 100,000 per year for men.
- The number needed to test to detect one BRCA1/2-positive patient decreased from 128 to 53 for women and from 119 to 42 for men when prescreening with FHS7.
IN PRACTICE:
“EHR-derived FHS7 identified thousands of patients with familial risk for breast cancer, indicating a substantial gap in genetic testing,” the study authors wrote. “Survey results suggest that most patients who are FHS7-positive in their EHR truly meet family history criteria, but that EHR-derived FHS7 may miss many patients who would be FHS7-positive if approached with a direct questionnaire,” the author wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Daniel Kiser, MS, University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s observational design may introduce self-selection biases, particularly among Healthy Nevada Project participants. The 21.8% response rate to the survey suggests potential self-selection among respondents. The tendency of less healthy patients to have more data available in their EHRs could influence the authors’ analysis of cancer incidence rates, despite adjustments for healthcare utilization levels.
DISCLOSURES:
Daniel Kiser and Joseph J. Grzymski, PhD, reported holding patents outside the submitted work. Dr. Grzymski also disclosed receiving grants from Gilead Sciences. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Sexual Revolution Has Been Great — For Men
During the month of September, Sexual Health Awareness Month, it may help to notice something: Men and their doctors have significantly more options to help with sexual function than do women and their clinicians. Moreover, .
Not convinced? Let’s take a quick tour.
The New Sexual Revolution and the Growing Anger
Around the time of the release of the book and movie Fifty Shades of Grey, Newsweek put the cultural sensation on its cover.
I bought the magazine at the airport and, while waiting for my plane, showed the story to a woman sitting next to me. “What do you think — is this the new ‘sexual revolution’?” I asked her.
She glanced at the cover and answered as accurately as if she had written the article: “In the ’60s, it became okay for women to have sex; now, it’s okay for women to demand good sex.”
I would add to that: Women are demanding good sex, and they want to define for themselves what “good” means.
That social revolution rages, still.
You would think that the demand would bring a corresponding response in clinical medicine. You would be wrong. Although efforts in some sectors are heroic, overall, the results are lagging the forward movement of women wanting better sex.
The Lag in Sexual Education
To examine the progression of the education of physicians regarding the treatment of female sexual dysfunction (FSD), Codispoti and colleagues examined the curricula of seven medical schools in and around Chicago. They found the following: Only one institution identified all anatomic components of the clitoris — one! Four of the seven discussed the physiology of the female orgasm. Only three of the seven highlighted the prevalence and epidemiology of FSD or the treatments for FSD. Only one of the seven explained how to do a genitourinary physical exam specific to assessing FSD.
When assessing obstetrics and gynecology clinical materials, sexual pleasure, arousal, and libido were not included anywhere in the curricula.
I have been teaching physicians about the therapies I developed (over 5000 clinicians in 50-plus countries over the past 14 years). During those sessions, I often stop the class and ask, “Who in here was taught how to retract the foreskin and examine the penis for phimosis?”
All hands will go up.
Then I will ask, “Who in here was taught in medical school how to retract the clitoral hood and examine the clitoris for phimosis?”
Not once has anyone raised a hand.
The Sex Remedies Gap
When I first published research offering support for using platelet-rich plasma to improve sexual function in women, women had not one drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of sexual dysfunction — none. Men had over 20. Today, men have a growing number of FDA-approved drugs for erectile dysfunction, including the “fils”; women have three.
Women have access to only one FDA-approved medication that primarily affects the genitalia: prasterone. This drug is indicated only for the treatment of pain in postmenopausal women. It does not directly enhance desire or improve orgasms. Said another way, although the incidence of sexual dysfunction is higher in premenopausal women than in other groups, they do not have a single approved medication designed to improve the function of their genitalia.
The other two of the three available drugs — flibanserin and bremelanotide — primarily affect the brain and could accurately be called psychoactive agents. They are available only for premenopausal women to improve desire. Flibanserin resulted in one extra sexual encounter per month on average, and patients are advised to avoid alcohol while using the drug. The other can make you vomit.
I do think all three of these treatments can be of great help to some women. I am not advising their disappearance. But in contrast to what is available to men, they are woefully inadequate.
Historical Perspective
In 1980, the medical establishment believed “most instances of acquired impotence are psychogenic.” Then, with the accidental discovery of the benefits of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, we realized that most cases of male sexual dysfunction involve the vasculature of the genitalia, not the neuroses of the brain. Yet, our two FDA-approved drugs for women with sexual dysfunction are designed to affect the brain. Women have nothing but off-label therapies to improve the function of the genitalia.
Despite the fact research supports the use of testosterone in women for both libido and orgasm, and despite the fact millions of women are treated with testosterone off-label for the benefit of sexual function, the only widely used FDA-approved class of drugs for women that affects testosterone — birth control pills, by blocking pituitary hormone production (the way they prevent pregnancy) — lowers the production of testosterone.
One might wonder, considering our expanded understanding of the endocrinology of both men and women, at the irony of why it is acceptable to lower the testosterone level of an adolescent girl knowingly, as if her development did not require the hormone (such would never be acceptable in an adolescent male unless sexual transitioning were the goal); yet, we are fearful of giving testosterone to grown women who can no longer make it.
Premenopausal Women: An Orphan Population
The concept of “orphan populations” can partially explain the gap in available therapies between men and women.
Women of childbearing age are risky to study; so, with testosterone, for example, it is safer and cheaper for pharmaceutical companies to prove the benefits for men and ride the profits from the off-label use for women. I don’t mean to condemn the manufacturers of testosterone, only to point out the phenomenon of why up to 30% of the prescriptions written by a primary care physician are off-label; off-label use is common among cardiologists (46%); up to 90% of children in the hospital receive at least one off-label drug; and approval of drugs for premenopausal women is more expensive than approval of drugs for men.
What Can Be Done?
The regrettable situation does not reflect evil intent on the part of regulators, educators, or physicians. But the gap between what women want and what medical education and the pharmaceutical-regulatory complex are providing is intolerably wide.
First, I would recommend a standard, required curriculum for the study of female sexual anatomy and function be established and widely adopted by medical schools. The reproductive system contains different components and a different purpose from the orgasm system, with modest overlap. Both systems should be taught in every medical school.
Second, physicians should be required to undergo a course in understanding their own sexuality. Research demonstrates doctors will avoid conversations about sex, and it seems to me this could be secondary to being uncomfortable with their own sexuality. After all, to talk with a patient about sex, you cannot be fearful of where the conversation may lead.
Third, the FDA might reconsider the requirements for the approval of drugs for FSD. Currently, to approve a drug for men, an objective finding — ie, an erection — can be sufficient. However, a higher bar, “satisfaction,” which is subjective, must be obtained with women.
Regenerative therapies have proved helpful but are not yet widely adopted; more grant money for the study of regenerative therapies would be a good start here.
Finally, by the definition of FSD, a woman must be psychologically distressed. The idea of sex is not pleasure alone. Sexual function affects family relationships, emotional health, confidence, even sleep, as well as the emotional well-being of the children who live in the house. Saying women are wonderfully and mysteriously made may be poetic, but it is not an excuse for not learning more and closing the gaps.
Dr. Runels is medical director of the Cellular Medicine Association, Fairhope, Alabama. He reported conflicts of interest with the Cellular Medicine Association, Runels Research Institute, Institute for Lichen Sclerosus, and Vulvar Health. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
During the month of September, Sexual Health Awareness Month, it may help to notice something: Men and their doctors have significantly more options to help with sexual function than do women and their clinicians. Moreover, .
Not convinced? Let’s take a quick tour.
The New Sexual Revolution and the Growing Anger
Around the time of the release of the book and movie Fifty Shades of Grey, Newsweek put the cultural sensation on its cover.
I bought the magazine at the airport and, while waiting for my plane, showed the story to a woman sitting next to me. “What do you think — is this the new ‘sexual revolution’?” I asked her.
She glanced at the cover and answered as accurately as if she had written the article: “In the ’60s, it became okay for women to have sex; now, it’s okay for women to demand good sex.”
I would add to that: Women are demanding good sex, and they want to define for themselves what “good” means.
That social revolution rages, still.
You would think that the demand would bring a corresponding response in clinical medicine. You would be wrong. Although efforts in some sectors are heroic, overall, the results are lagging the forward movement of women wanting better sex.
The Lag in Sexual Education
To examine the progression of the education of physicians regarding the treatment of female sexual dysfunction (FSD), Codispoti and colleagues examined the curricula of seven medical schools in and around Chicago. They found the following: Only one institution identified all anatomic components of the clitoris — one! Four of the seven discussed the physiology of the female orgasm. Only three of the seven highlighted the prevalence and epidemiology of FSD or the treatments for FSD. Only one of the seven explained how to do a genitourinary physical exam specific to assessing FSD.
When assessing obstetrics and gynecology clinical materials, sexual pleasure, arousal, and libido were not included anywhere in the curricula.
I have been teaching physicians about the therapies I developed (over 5000 clinicians in 50-plus countries over the past 14 years). During those sessions, I often stop the class and ask, “Who in here was taught how to retract the foreskin and examine the penis for phimosis?”
All hands will go up.
Then I will ask, “Who in here was taught in medical school how to retract the clitoral hood and examine the clitoris for phimosis?”
Not once has anyone raised a hand.
The Sex Remedies Gap
When I first published research offering support for using platelet-rich plasma to improve sexual function in women, women had not one drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of sexual dysfunction — none. Men had over 20. Today, men have a growing number of FDA-approved drugs for erectile dysfunction, including the “fils”; women have three.
Women have access to only one FDA-approved medication that primarily affects the genitalia: prasterone. This drug is indicated only for the treatment of pain in postmenopausal women. It does not directly enhance desire or improve orgasms. Said another way, although the incidence of sexual dysfunction is higher in premenopausal women than in other groups, they do not have a single approved medication designed to improve the function of their genitalia.
The other two of the three available drugs — flibanserin and bremelanotide — primarily affect the brain and could accurately be called psychoactive agents. They are available only for premenopausal women to improve desire. Flibanserin resulted in one extra sexual encounter per month on average, and patients are advised to avoid alcohol while using the drug. The other can make you vomit.
I do think all three of these treatments can be of great help to some women. I am not advising their disappearance. But in contrast to what is available to men, they are woefully inadequate.
Historical Perspective
In 1980, the medical establishment believed “most instances of acquired impotence are psychogenic.” Then, with the accidental discovery of the benefits of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, we realized that most cases of male sexual dysfunction involve the vasculature of the genitalia, not the neuroses of the brain. Yet, our two FDA-approved drugs for women with sexual dysfunction are designed to affect the brain. Women have nothing but off-label therapies to improve the function of the genitalia.
Despite the fact research supports the use of testosterone in women for both libido and orgasm, and despite the fact millions of women are treated with testosterone off-label for the benefit of sexual function, the only widely used FDA-approved class of drugs for women that affects testosterone — birth control pills, by blocking pituitary hormone production (the way they prevent pregnancy) — lowers the production of testosterone.
One might wonder, considering our expanded understanding of the endocrinology of both men and women, at the irony of why it is acceptable to lower the testosterone level of an adolescent girl knowingly, as if her development did not require the hormone (such would never be acceptable in an adolescent male unless sexual transitioning were the goal); yet, we are fearful of giving testosterone to grown women who can no longer make it.
Premenopausal Women: An Orphan Population
The concept of “orphan populations” can partially explain the gap in available therapies between men and women.
Women of childbearing age are risky to study; so, with testosterone, for example, it is safer and cheaper for pharmaceutical companies to prove the benefits for men and ride the profits from the off-label use for women. I don’t mean to condemn the manufacturers of testosterone, only to point out the phenomenon of why up to 30% of the prescriptions written by a primary care physician are off-label; off-label use is common among cardiologists (46%); up to 90% of children in the hospital receive at least one off-label drug; and approval of drugs for premenopausal women is more expensive than approval of drugs for men.
What Can Be Done?
The regrettable situation does not reflect evil intent on the part of regulators, educators, or physicians. But the gap between what women want and what medical education and the pharmaceutical-regulatory complex are providing is intolerably wide.
First, I would recommend a standard, required curriculum for the study of female sexual anatomy and function be established and widely adopted by medical schools. The reproductive system contains different components and a different purpose from the orgasm system, with modest overlap. Both systems should be taught in every medical school.
Second, physicians should be required to undergo a course in understanding their own sexuality. Research demonstrates doctors will avoid conversations about sex, and it seems to me this could be secondary to being uncomfortable with their own sexuality. After all, to talk with a patient about sex, you cannot be fearful of where the conversation may lead.
Third, the FDA might reconsider the requirements for the approval of drugs for FSD. Currently, to approve a drug for men, an objective finding — ie, an erection — can be sufficient. However, a higher bar, “satisfaction,” which is subjective, must be obtained with women.
Regenerative therapies have proved helpful but are not yet widely adopted; more grant money for the study of regenerative therapies would be a good start here.
Finally, by the definition of FSD, a woman must be psychologically distressed. The idea of sex is not pleasure alone. Sexual function affects family relationships, emotional health, confidence, even sleep, as well as the emotional well-being of the children who live in the house. Saying women are wonderfully and mysteriously made may be poetic, but it is not an excuse for not learning more and closing the gaps.
Dr. Runels is medical director of the Cellular Medicine Association, Fairhope, Alabama. He reported conflicts of interest with the Cellular Medicine Association, Runels Research Institute, Institute for Lichen Sclerosus, and Vulvar Health. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
During the month of September, Sexual Health Awareness Month, it may help to notice something: Men and their doctors have significantly more options to help with sexual function than do women and their clinicians. Moreover, .
Not convinced? Let’s take a quick tour.
The New Sexual Revolution and the Growing Anger
Around the time of the release of the book and movie Fifty Shades of Grey, Newsweek put the cultural sensation on its cover.
I bought the magazine at the airport and, while waiting for my plane, showed the story to a woman sitting next to me. “What do you think — is this the new ‘sexual revolution’?” I asked her.
She glanced at the cover and answered as accurately as if she had written the article: “In the ’60s, it became okay for women to have sex; now, it’s okay for women to demand good sex.”
I would add to that: Women are demanding good sex, and they want to define for themselves what “good” means.
That social revolution rages, still.
You would think that the demand would bring a corresponding response in clinical medicine. You would be wrong. Although efforts in some sectors are heroic, overall, the results are lagging the forward movement of women wanting better sex.
The Lag in Sexual Education
To examine the progression of the education of physicians regarding the treatment of female sexual dysfunction (FSD), Codispoti and colleagues examined the curricula of seven medical schools in and around Chicago. They found the following: Only one institution identified all anatomic components of the clitoris — one! Four of the seven discussed the physiology of the female orgasm. Only three of the seven highlighted the prevalence and epidemiology of FSD or the treatments for FSD. Only one of the seven explained how to do a genitourinary physical exam specific to assessing FSD.
When assessing obstetrics and gynecology clinical materials, sexual pleasure, arousal, and libido were not included anywhere in the curricula.
I have been teaching physicians about the therapies I developed (over 5000 clinicians in 50-plus countries over the past 14 years). During those sessions, I often stop the class and ask, “Who in here was taught how to retract the foreskin and examine the penis for phimosis?”
All hands will go up.
Then I will ask, “Who in here was taught in medical school how to retract the clitoral hood and examine the clitoris for phimosis?”
Not once has anyone raised a hand.
The Sex Remedies Gap
When I first published research offering support for using platelet-rich plasma to improve sexual function in women, women had not one drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of sexual dysfunction — none. Men had over 20. Today, men have a growing number of FDA-approved drugs for erectile dysfunction, including the “fils”; women have three.
Women have access to only one FDA-approved medication that primarily affects the genitalia: prasterone. This drug is indicated only for the treatment of pain in postmenopausal women. It does not directly enhance desire or improve orgasms. Said another way, although the incidence of sexual dysfunction is higher in premenopausal women than in other groups, they do not have a single approved medication designed to improve the function of their genitalia.
The other two of the three available drugs — flibanserin and bremelanotide — primarily affect the brain and could accurately be called psychoactive agents. They are available only for premenopausal women to improve desire. Flibanserin resulted in one extra sexual encounter per month on average, and patients are advised to avoid alcohol while using the drug. The other can make you vomit.
I do think all three of these treatments can be of great help to some women. I am not advising their disappearance. But in contrast to what is available to men, they are woefully inadequate.
Historical Perspective
In 1980, the medical establishment believed “most instances of acquired impotence are psychogenic.” Then, with the accidental discovery of the benefits of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, we realized that most cases of male sexual dysfunction involve the vasculature of the genitalia, not the neuroses of the brain. Yet, our two FDA-approved drugs for women with sexual dysfunction are designed to affect the brain. Women have nothing but off-label therapies to improve the function of the genitalia.
Despite the fact research supports the use of testosterone in women for both libido and orgasm, and despite the fact millions of women are treated with testosterone off-label for the benefit of sexual function, the only widely used FDA-approved class of drugs for women that affects testosterone — birth control pills, by blocking pituitary hormone production (the way they prevent pregnancy) — lowers the production of testosterone.
One might wonder, considering our expanded understanding of the endocrinology of both men and women, at the irony of why it is acceptable to lower the testosterone level of an adolescent girl knowingly, as if her development did not require the hormone (such would never be acceptable in an adolescent male unless sexual transitioning were the goal); yet, we are fearful of giving testosterone to grown women who can no longer make it.
Premenopausal Women: An Orphan Population
The concept of “orphan populations” can partially explain the gap in available therapies between men and women.
Women of childbearing age are risky to study; so, with testosterone, for example, it is safer and cheaper for pharmaceutical companies to prove the benefits for men and ride the profits from the off-label use for women. I don’t mean to condemn the manufacturers of testosterone, only to point out the phenomenon of why up to 30% of the prescriptions written by a primary care physician are off-label; off-label use is common among cardiologists (46%); up to 90% of children in the hospital receive at least one off-label drug; and approval of drugs for premenopausal women is more expensive than approval of drugs for men.
What Can Be Done?
The regrettable situation does not reflect evil intent on the part of regulators, educators, or physicians. But the gap between what women want and what medical education and the pharmaceutical-regulatory complex are providing is intolerably wide.
First, I would recommend a standard, required curriculum for the study of female sexual anatomy and function be established and widely adopted by medical schools. The reproductive system contains different components and a different purpose from the orgasm system, with modest overlap. Both systems should be taught in every medical school.
Second, physicians should be required to undergo a course in understanding their own sexuality. Research demonstrates doctors will avoid conversations about sex, and it seems to me this could be secondary to being uncomfortable with their own sexuality. After all, to talk with a patient about sex, you cannot be fearful of where the conversation may lead.
Third, the FDA might reconsider the requirements for the approval of drugs for FSD. Currently, to approve a drug for men, an objective finding — ie, an erection — can be sufficient. However, a higher bar, “satisfaction,” which is subjective, must be obtained with women.
Regenerative therapies have proved helpful but are not yet widely adopted; more grant money for the study of regenerative therapies would be a good start here.
Finally, by the definition of FSD, a woman must be psychologically distressed. The idea of sex is not pleasure alone. Sexual function affects family relationships, emotional health, confidence, even sleep, as well as the emotional well-being of the children who live in the house. Saying women are wonderfully and mysteriously made may be poetic, but it is not an excuse for not learning more and closing the gaps.
Dr. Runels is medical director of the Cellular Medicine Association, Fairhope, Alabama. He reported conflicts of interest with the Cellular Medicine Association, Runels Research Institute, Institute for Lichen Sclerosus, and Vulvar Health. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Burnout and Vacations
How many weeks of vacation do you take each year? Does it feel like enough? What prevents you from taking more time off? Is it a contractual obligation to your employer? Or a concern about the lack of income while your are away? Is it the difficulty of finding coverage for your patient care responsibilities? How much of it is the dread of facing your unattended or poorly attended EHR box when you return?
A recent survey of more than 3000 US physicians found that almost 60% took 3 weeks or less vacation per year? The investigators also learned that 70% of the respondents did patient-related tasks while they were on vacation and less than half had full EHR coverage while they were away. Not surprisingly, providers who expressed concerns about finding someone to cover clinical responsibilities and financial concerns were less likely to take more than 3 weeks’ vacation.
As one might hope, taking more than 3 weeks’ vacation and having full EHR coverage were associated with decreased rates of burnout. On the other hand, spending more than 30 minutes per day doing patient-related work while on vacation was associated with higher rates of burnout.
In their conclusion, the authors suggest that if we hope to reduce physician burnout, employers should introduce system-level initiatives to ensure that physicians take adequate vacation and have adequate coverage for their clinical responsibilities — including EHR inbox management.
I will readily admit that I was one of those physicians who took less than 3 weeks of vacation and can’t recall ever taking more than 2 weeks. Since most of our vacations were staycations, I would usually round on the newborns first thing in the morning when I was in town to keep the flow of new patients coming into the practice.
I’m sure there was some collateral damage to my family, but our children continue to reassure me that they weren’t envious of their peers who went away on “real” vacations. As adults two of them take their families on the kind of vacations that make me envious. The third has married someone who shares, what I might call, a “robust commitment” to showing up in the office. But they seem to be a happy couple.
At the root of my vacation style was an egotistical delusion that there weren’t any clinicians in the community who could look after my patients as well as I did. Unfortunately, I had done little to discourage those patients who shared my distorted view.
I was lucky to have spent nearly all my career without the added burden of an EHR inbox. However, in the lead up to our infrequent vacations, the rush to tie up the loose ends of those patients for whom we had not achieved diagnostic closure was stressful and time consuming. Luckily, as a primary care pediatrician most of their problems were short lived. But, leaving the ship battened down could be exhausting.
I can fully understand why the physicians who are taking less than 3 weeks’ vacation and continue to be burdened by patient-related tasks while they are “away” are more likely to experience burnout. However, I wonder why I seemed to have been resistant considering my vacation style, which the authors of the above-mentioned article feel would have placed me at high risk.
I think the answer may lie in my commitment to making decisions that allowed me to maintain equilibrium in my life. In other words, if there were things in my day-to-day activities that were so taxing or distasteful that I am counting the hours and days until I can escape them, then I needed to make the necessary changes promptly and not count on a vacation to repair the accumulating damage. That may have required cutting back some responsibilities or it may have meant that I needed to be in better mental and physical shape to be able to maintain that equilibrium. Maybe it was more sleep, more exercise, less television, not investing as much in time-wasting meetings. This doesn’t mean that I didn’t have bad days. Stuff happens. But if I was putting together two or three bad days a week, something had to change. A vacation wasn’t going solve the inherent or systemic problems that are making day-to-day life so intolerable that I needed to escape for some respite.
In full disclosure, I will share that at age 55 I took a leave of 2 1/2 months and with my wife and another couple bicycled across America. This was a goal I had harbored since childhood and in anticipation over several decades had banked considerable coverage equity by doing extra coverage for other providers to minimize my guilt feelings at being away. This was not an escape from I job I didn’t enjoy going to everyday. It was an exercise in goal fulfillment.
I think the authors of this recent study should be applauded for providing some numbers to support the obvious. However,
Encouraging a clinician to take a bit more vacation may help. But, having someone to properly manage the EHR inbox would do a lot more. If your coverage is telling everyone to “Wait until Dr. Away has returned” it is only going to make things worse.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
How many weeks of vacation do you take each year? Does it feel like enough? What prevents you from taking more time off? Is it a contractual obligation to your employer? Or a concern about the lack of income while your are away? Is it the difficulty of finding coverage for your patient care responsibilities? How much of it is the dread of facing your unattended or poorly attended EHR box when you return?
A recent survey of more than 3000 US physicians found that almost 60% took 3 weeks or less vacation per year? The investigators also learned that 70% of the respondents did patient-related tasks while they were on vacation and less than half had full EHR coverage while they were away. Not surprisingly, providers who expressed concerns about finding someone to cover clinical responsibilities and financial concerns were less likely to take more than 3 weeks’ vacation.
As one might hope, taking more than 3 weeks’ vacation and having full EHR coverage were associated with decreased rates of burnout. On the other hand, spending more than 30 minutes per day doing patient-related work while on vacation was associated with higher rates of burnout.
In their conclusion, the authors suggest that if we hope to reduce physician burnout, employers should introduce system-level initiatives to ensure that physicians take adequate vacation and have adequate coverage for their clinical responsibilities — including EHR inbox management.
I will readily admit that I was one of those physicians who took less than 3 weeks of vacation and can’t recall ever taking more than 2 weeks. Since most of our vacations were staycations, I would usually round on the newborns first thing in the morning when I was in town to keep the flow of new patients coming into the practice.
I’m sure there was some collateral damage to my family, but our children continue to reassure me that they weren’t envious of their peers who went away on “real” vacations. As adults two of them take their families on the kind of vacations that make me envious. The third has married someone who shares, what I might call, a “robust commitment” to showing up in the office. But they seem to be a happy couple.
At the root of my vacation style was an egotistical delusion that there weren’t any clinicians in the community who could look after my patients as well as I did. Unfortunately, I had done little to discourage those patients who shared my distorted view.
I was lucky to have spent nearly all my career without the added burden of an EHR inbox. However, in the lead up to our infrequent vacations, the rush to tie up the loose ends of those patients for whom we had not achieved diagnostic closure was stressful and time consuming. Luckily, as a primary care pediatrician most of their problems were short lived. But, leaving the ship battened down could be exhausting.
I can fully understand why the physicians who are taking less than 3 weeks’ vacation and continue to be burdened by patient-related tasks while they are “away” are more likely to experience burnout. However, I wonder why I seemed to have been resistant considering my vacation style, which the authors of the above-mentioned article feel would have placed me at high risk.
I think the answer may lie in my commitment to making decisions that allowed me to maintain equilibrium in my life. In other words, if there were things in my day-to-day activities that were so taxing or distasteful that I am counting the hours and days until I can escape them, then I needed to make the necessary changes promptly and not count on a vacation to repair the accumulating damage. That may have required cutting back some responsibilities or it may have meant that I needed to be in better mental and physical shape to be able to maintain that equilibrium. Maybe it was more sleep, more exercise, less television, not investing as much in time-wasting meetings. This doesn’t mean that I didn’t have bad days. Stuff happens. But if I was putting together two or three bad days a week, something had to change. A vacation wasn’t going solve the inherent or systemic problems that are making day-to-day life so intolerable that I needed to escape for some respite.
In full disclosure, I will share that at age 55 I took a leave of 2 1/2 months and with my wife and another couple bicycled across America. This was a goal I had harbored since childhood and in anticipation over several decades had banked considerable coverage equity by doing extra coverage for other providers to minimize my guilt feelings at being away. This was not an escape from I job I didn’t enjoy going to everyday. It was an exercise in goal fulfillment.
I think the authors of this recent study should be applauded for providing some numbers to support the obvious. However,
Encouraging a clinician to take a bit more vacation may help. But, having someone to properly manage the EHR inbox would do a lot more. If your coverage is telling everyone to “Wait until Dr. Away has returned” it is only going to make things worse.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
How many weeks of vacation do you take each year? Does it feel like enough? What prevents you from taking more time off? Is it a contractual obligation to your employer? Or a concern about the lack of income while your are away? Is it the difficulty of finding coverage for your patient care responsibilities? How much of it is the dread of facing your unattended or poorly attended EHR box when you return?
A recent survey of more than 3000 US physicians found that almost 60% took 3 weeks or less vacation per year? The investigators also learned that 70% of the respondents did patient-related tasks while they were on vacation and less than half had full EHR coverage while they were away. Not surprisingly, providers who expressed concerns about finding someone to cover clinical responsibilities and financial concerns were less likely to take more than 3 weeks’ vacation.
As one might hope, taking more than 3 weeks’ vacation and having full EHR coverage were associated with decreased rates of burnout. On the other hand, spending more than 30 minutes per day doing patient-related work while on vacation was associated with higher rates of burnout.
In their conclusion, the authors suggest that if we hope to reduce physician burnout, employers should introduce system-level initiatives to ensure that physicians take adequate vacation and have adequate coverage for their clinical responsibilities — including EHR inbox management.
I will readily admit that I was one of those physicians who took less than 3 weeks of vacation and can’t recall ever taking more than 2 weeks. Since most of our vacations were staycations, I would usually round on the newborns first thing in the morning when I was in town to keep the flow of new patients coming into the practice.
I’m sure there was some collateral damage to my family, but our children continue to reassure me that they weren’t envious of their peers who went away on “real” vacations. As adults two of them take their families on the kind of vacations that make me envious. The third has married someone who shares, what I might call, a “robust commitment” to showing up in the office. But they seem to be a happy couple.
At the root of my vacation style was an egotistical delusion that there weren’t any clinicians in the community who could look after my patients as well as I did. Unfortunately, I had done little to discourage those patients who shared my distorted view.
I was lucky to have spent nearly all my career without the added burden of an EHR inbox. However, in the lead up to our infrequent vacations, the rush to tie up the loose ends of those patients for whom we had not achieved diagnostic closure was stressful and time consuming. Luckily, as a primary care pediatrician most of their problems were short lived. But, leaving the ship battened down could be exhausting.
I can fully understand why the physicians who are taking less than 3 weeks’ vacation and continue to be burdened by patient-related tasks while they are “away” are more likely to experience burnout. However, I wonder why I seemed to have been resistant considering my vacation style, which the authors of the above-mentioned article feel would have placed me at high risk.
I think the answer may lie in my commitment to making decisions that allowed me to maintain equilibrium in my life. In other words, if there were things in my day-to-day activities that were so taxing or distasteful that I am counting the hours and days until I can escape them, then I needed to make the necessary changes promptly and not count on a vacation to repair the accumulating damage. That may have required cutting back some responsibilities or it may have meant that I needed to be in better mental and physical shape to be able to maintain that equilibrium. Maybe it was more sleep, more exercise, less television, not investing as much in time-wasting meetings. This doesn’t mean that I didn’t have bad days. Stuff happens. But if I was putting together two or three bad days a week, something had to change. A vacation wasn’t going solve the inherent or systemic problems that are making day-to-day life so intolerable that I needed to escape for some respite.
In full disclosure, I will share that at age 55 I took a leave of 2 1/2 months and with my wife and another couple bicycled across America. This was a goal I had harbored since childhood and in anticipation over several decades had banked considerable coverage equity by doing extra coverage for other providers to minimize my guilt feelings at being away. This was not an escape from I job I didn’t enjoy going to everyday. It was an exercise in goal fulfillment.
I think the authors of this recent study should be applauded for providing some numbers to support the obvious. However,
Encouraging a clinician to take a bit more vacation may help. But, having someone to properly manage the EHR inbox would do a lot more. If your coverage is telling everyone to “Wait until Dr. Away has returned” it is only going to make things worse.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
AI-Assisted Pathology Poised to Transform Liver Disease Care
Although the technology is not yet approved for routine clinical use, it’s constantly improving and aims to address the limitations inherent in today’s pathology processes.
“You do a biopsy, but instead of having a pathologist read it with their very rough scores of stage 1, 2, or 3, you read it by an AI-driven machine that can quantify it with a score of 1.5 or 1.75 instead of 1 or 2,” Vlad Ratziu, MD, PhD, professor of hepatology at the Sorbonne Université and Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière Medical School in Paris, France, and coeditor of The Journal of Hepatology, said in an interview.
“The technology is automated, more sensitive to change, and more highly quantitative. It has implications for liver disease diagnoses, clinical trials, and treatments,” added Dr. Ratziu, who has written about the promise and challenges inherent in developing treatments for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).
To explore the potential impact of AI-powered technologies for the clinic, this news organization spoke with representatives from three companies identified by Dr. Ratziu as leaders in the field: HistoIndex, PathAI, and PharmaNest. Each company uses proprietary technology augmented by AI, and their tools have been used in published trials.
Moving Toward Better Diagnoses and Disease Management
The traditional approach for staging liver fibrosis relies on trained pathologists manually evaluating stained tissue samples obtained from biopsies of the liver.
But this method, though still considered the gold standard, doesn’t always provide the granularity needed for an accurate diagnosis or a reliable assessment in clinical trials, said Dean Tai, PhD, HistoIndex’s cofounder and chief scientific officer.
Although noninvasive tests (NITs), alone or with traditional histologic examination, are increasingly used during clinical management because they are less invasive and more repeatable for disease monitoring, they are limited in their precision and ability to provide comprehensive information, Dr. Tai said. That’s because “no single NIT or single-dimensional measurement of a biomarker offers a full assessment of disease activity, fibrogenic drive, and fibrosis load.”
In contrast, AI provides “a highly reproducible and objective assessment of liver fibrosis severity,” he said. “It eliminates the variability associated with staining methods, while revealing changes in the nano-architecture and morphology of collagen fibers not discernible by the human eye or current NITs, especially in the early stages of fibrosis or in cases of simultaneous progression and regression.”
Mathieu Petitjean, PhD, founder and CEO of PharmaNest, has a similar view.
Although degree of liver fibrosis is associated with long-term outcomes of patients with MASLD, “poor detection thresholds due to their categorical nature mean that small and relevant changes are not reflected by changes in staging,” he said. “The reliable detection [with AI] of subtle changes in the phenotypes of fibrosis will significantly enrich the understanding of progression and regression of fibrosis severity.”
The ability of AI-based tools to see patterns the human eye cannot also means they could “help in predicting which patient may respond to a drug, in order to get the right treatments to the right patients as soon as possible,” said Katy Wack, PhD, vice president of clinical development at PathAI.
“Additionally, AI-based algorithms have been developed to provide more quantitative continuous scores to better capture change and discover new tissue-based biomarkers, which may be prognostic or predictive of clinical benefit,” she said.
Such tools are currently undergoing testing and validation for use in trials and diagnostically.
The standardization and reproducibility offered by AI-driven technology could facilitate more consistent diagnoses across different healthcare settings, Dr. Tai suggested. “As the integration of the technology with other blood-, imaging-, and omics-based techniques evolves, it may enable earlier detection of liver diseases, more accurate monitoring of disease progression, and better evaluation of treatment responses, ultimately improving patient care and outcomes.”
More Effective Clinical Trials
The limitations of conventional pathology may be responsible, at least in part, for the repeated failure of novel compounds to move from phase 2 to phase 3 clinical trials, and from clinical trials to approval, the sources agreed.
“In clinical trials, patients are subject to enrollment criteria using liver biopsies, which are scored with a composite scoring system involving four different histologic components to grade and stage the disease,” Dr. Wack noted.
However, there is wide variability between pathologists on biopsy scoring, and an individual pathologist presented with the same sample may give it a different score after some time has passed, she said.
That means “we are using a nonstandardized and inconsistent scoring system to determine whether a patient can be enrolled or not into a trial,” Dr. Wack said.
The change in the composite score over a follow-up period, usually 1-2 years, determines whether a patient has responded to the candidate drug and, ultimately, whether that drug could be considered for approval, Dr. Wack said.
Because scores at the baseline and follow-up timepoints are not precise and inconsistent across pathologist readers, and even the same reader over time, there are often many “false-positive” and “false-negative” responses that can result in potential therapeutics either failing or succeeding in clinical trials, she said.
To address this variability in biopsy scoring as it relates to clinical trials, regulatory bodies have recommended a consensus approach, in which multiple pathologists read the same biopsy independently and a median score is used, or pathologists convene to come to an agreement, Dr. Wack said.
“This is a very costly and burdensome approach and is still subject to interconsensus panel variation,” she said.
The introduction of digital pathology using validated digital viewers, where pathologists can view a glass slide digitally and pan and zoom over the image as they can with a microscope, means that many pathologists can read the same slide in parallel, she explained.
“If they need to discuss, they can do so efficiently over a phone call, each using their own computer screen and shared annotation tools to facilitate their discussion.”
Although this consensus approach can improve consistency, it still leads to variability in scoring across different groups of pathologists, Dr. Wack said.
This is where AI-assisted pathology comes into play.
“With this approach, a pathologist still views the image digitally, but an algorithm has predicted and highlighted key features and recommended quantitative scores,” she said.
This approach has been shown to increase precision for pathologists, thereby increasing reproducibility and standardizing scoring across timepoints and clinical trials.
What’s Ahead
These AI tools could address pathology’s lack of scalability, the result of a limited number of trained pathologists capable of doing liver biopsy assessments, Dr. Tai said.
“Digital pathology workflows enable the transformation of conventional histologic glass slides into large digital images using scanners, allowing significant productivity gains in terms of workflow and collaboration,” he said.
Although AI-assisted pathology tools are still being validated, their promise for improving diagnoses and uncovering new treatments is clear, the interviewees agreed.
Extending its use to stage fibrosis in other liver diseases, such as primary biliary cholangitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, and alcoholic liver disease, is also in progress on an experimental basis but will take time to validate.
“The landscape will evolve quickly in the coming 3-4 years,” Dr. Petitjean predicted. “To start, their intended use will likely be limited to a decision-support tool to enhance the performance of pathologists and perhaps stratify or triage cases sent for routine vs expert review.”
Dr. Petitjean even suggested that the increasing role of NITs and the amount of data being generated prospectively and retrospectively around liver biomarkers could mean that liver biopsies might not be needed one day.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Although the technology is not yet approved for routine clinical use, it’s constantly improving and aims to address the limitations inherent in today’s pathology processes.
“You do a biopsy, but instead of having a pathologist read it with their very rough scores of stage 1, 2, or 3, you read it by an AI-driven machine that can quantify it with a score of 1.5 or 1.75 instead of 1 or 2,” Vlad Ratziu, MD, PhD, professor of hepatology at the Sorbonne Université and Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière Medical School in Paris, France, and coeditor of The Journal of Hepatology, said in an interview.
“The technology is automated, more sensitive to change, and more highly quantitative. It has implications for liver disease diagnoses, clinical trials, and treatments,” added Dr. Ratziu, who has written about the promise and challenges inherent in developing treatments for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).
To explore the potential impact of AI-powered technologies for the clinic, this news organization spoke with representatives from three companies identified by Dr. Ratziu as leaders in the field: HistoIndex, PathAI, and PharmaNest. Each company uses proprietary technology augmented by AI, and their tools have been used in published trials.
Moving Toward Better Diagnoses and Disease Management
The traditional approach for staging liver fibrosis relies on trained pathologists manually evaluating stained tissue samples obtained from biopsies of the liver.
But this method, though still considered the gold standard, doesn’t always provide the granularity needed for an accurate diagnosis or a reliable assessment in clinical trials, said Dean Tai, PhD, HistoIndex’s cofounder and chief scientific officer.
Although noninvasive tests (NITs), alone or with traditional histologic examination, are increasingly used during clinical management because they are less invasive and more repeatable for disease monitoring, they are limited in their precision and ability to provide comprehensive information, Dr. Tai said. That’s because “no single NIT or single-dimensional measurement of a biomarker offers a full assessment of disease activity, fibrogenic drive, and fibrosis load.”
In contrast, AI provides “a highly reproducible and objective assessment of liver fibrosis severity,” he said. “It eliminates the variability associated with staining methods, while revealing changes in the nano-architecture and morphology of collagen fibers not discernible by the human eye or current NITs, especially in the early stages of fibrosis or in cases of simultaneous progression and regression.”
Mathieu Petitjean, PhD, founder and CEO of PharmaNest, has a similar view.
Although degree of liver fibrosis is associated with long-term outcomes of patients with MASLD, “poor detection thresholds due to their categorical nature mean that small and relevant changes are not reflected by changes in staging,” he said. “The reliable detection [with AI] of subtle changes in the phenotypes of fibrosis will significantly enrich the understanding of progression and regression of fibrosis severity.”
The ability of AI-based tools to see patterns the human eye cannot also means they could “help in predicting which patient may respond to a drug, in order to get the right treatments to the right patients as soon as possible,” said Katy Wack, PhD, vice president of clinical development at PathAI.
“Additionally, AI-based algorithms have been developed to provide more quantitative continuous scores to better capture change and discover new tissue-based biomarkers, which may be prognostic or predictive of clinical benefit,” she said.
Such tools are currently undergoing testing and validation for use in trials and diagnostically.
The standardization and reproducibility offered by AI-driven technology could facilitate more consistent diagnoses across different healthcare settings, Dr. Tai suggested. “As the integration of the technology with other blood-, imaging-, and omics-based techniques evolves, it may enable earlier detection of liver diseases, more accurate monitoring of disease progression, and better evaluation of treatment responses, ultimately improving patient care and outcomes.”
More Effective Clinical Trials
The limitations of conventional pathology may be responsible, at least in part, for the repeated failure of novel compounds to move from phase 2 to phase 3 clinical trials, and from clinical trials to approval, the sources agreed.
“In clinical trials, patients are subject to enrollment criteria using liver biopsies, which are scored with a composite scoring system involving four different histologic components to grade and stage the disease,” Dr. Wack noted.
However, there is wide variability between pathologists on biopsy scoring, and an individual pathologist presented with the same sample may give it a different score after some time has passed, she said.
That means “we are using a nonstandardized and inconsistent scoring system to determine whether a patient can be enrolled or not into a trial,” Dr. Wack said.
The change in the composite score over a follow-up period, usually 1-2 years, determines whether a patient has responded to the candidate drug and, ultimately, whether that drug could be considered for approval, Dr. Wack said.
Because scores at the baseline and follow-up timepoints are not precise and inconsistent across pathologist readers, and even the same reader over time, there are often many “false-positive” and “false-negative” responses that can result in potential therapeutics either failing or succeeding in clinical trials, she said.
To address this variability in biopsy scoring as it relates to clinical trials, regulatory bodies have recommended a consensus approach, in which multiple pathologists read the same biopsy independently and a median score is used, or pathologists convene to come to an agreement, Dr. Wack said.
“This is a very costly and burdensome approach and is still subject to interconsensus panel variation,” she said.
The introduction of digital pathology using validated digital viewers, where pathologists can view a glass slide digitally and pan and zoom over the image as they can with a microscope, means that many pathologists can read the same slide in parallel, she explained.
“If they need to discuss, they can do so efficiently over a phone call, each using their own computer screen and shared annotation tools to facilitate their discussion.”
Although this consensus approach can improve consistency, it still leads to variability in scoring across different groups of pathologists, Dr. Wack said.
This is where AI-assisted pathology comes into play.
“With this approach, a pathologist still views the image digitally, but an algorithm has predicted and highlighted key features and recommended quantitative scores,” she said.
This approach has been shown to increase precision for pathologists, thereby increasing reproducibility and standardizing scoring across timepoints and clinical trials.
What’s Ahead
These AI tools could address pathology’s lack of scalability, the result of a limited number of trained pathologists capable of doing liver biopsy assessments, Dr. Tai said.
“Digital pathology workflows enable the transformation of conventional histologic glass slides into large digital images using scanners, allowing significant productivity gains in terms of workflow and collaboration,” he said.
Although AI-assisted pathology tools are still being validated, their promise for improving diagnoses and uncovering new treatments is clear, the interviewees agreed.
Extending its use to stage fibrosis in other liver diseases, such as primary biliary cholangitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, and alcoholic liver disease, is also in progress on an experimental basis but will take time to validate.
“The landscape will evolve quickly in the coming 3-4 years,” Dr. Petitjean predicted. “To start, their intended use will likely be limited to a decision-support tool to enhance the performance of pathologists and perhaps stratify or triage cases sent for routine vs expert review.”
Dr. Petitjean even suggested that the increasing role of NITs and the amount of data being generated prospectively and retrospectively around liver biomarkers could mean that liver biopsies might not be needed one day.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Although the technology is not yet approved for routine clinical use, it’s constantly improving and aims to address the limitations inherent in today’s pathology processes.
“You do a biopsy, but instead of having a pathologist read it with their very rough scores of stage 1, 2, or 3, you read it by an AI-driven machine that can quantify it with a score of 1.5 or 1.75 instead of 1 or 2,” Vlad Ratziu, MD, PhD, professor of hepatology at the Sorbonne Université and Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière Medical School in Paris, France, and coeditor of The Journal of Hepatology, said in an interview.
“The technology is automated, more sensitive to change, and more highly quantitative. It has implications for liver disease diagnoses, clinical trials, and treatments,” added Dr. Ratziu, who has written about the promise and challenges inherent in developing treatments for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).
To explore the potential impact of AI-powered technologies for the clinic, this news organization spoke with representatives from three companies identified by Dr. Ratziu as leaders in the field: HistoIndex, PathAI, and PharmaNest. Each company uses proprietary technology augmented by AI, and their tools have been used in published trials.
Moving Toward Better Diagnoses and Disease Management
The traditional approach for staging liver fibrosis relies on trained pathologists manually evaluating stained tissue samples obtained from biopsies of the liver.
But this method, though still considered the gold standard, doesn’t always provide the granularity needed for an accurate diagnosis or a reliable assessment in clinical trials, said Dean Tai, PhD, HistoIndex’s cofounder and chief scientific officer.
Although noninvasive tests (NITs), alone or with traditional histologic examination, are increasingly used during clinical management because they are less invasive and more repeatable for disease monitoring, they are limited in their precision and ability to provide comprehensive information, Dr. Tai said. That’s because “no single NIT or single-dimensional measurement of a biomarker offers a full assessment of disease activity, fibrogenic drive, and fibrosis load.”
In contrast, AI provides “a highly reproducible and objective assessment of liver fibrosis severity,” he said. “It eliminates the variability associated with staining methods, while revealing changes in the nano-architecture and morphology of collagen fibers not discernible by the human eye or current NITs, especially in the early stages of fibrosis or in cases of simultaneous progression and regression.”
Mathieu Petitjean, PhD, founder and CEO of PharmaNest, has a similar view.
Although degree of liver fibrosis is associated with long-term outcomes of patients with MASLD, “poor detection thresholds due to their categorical nature mean that small and relevant changes are not reflected by changes in staging,” he said. “The reliable detection [with AI] of subtle changes in the phenotypes of fibrosis will significantly enrich the understanding of progression and regression of fibrosis severity.”
The ability of AI-based tools to see patterns the human eye cannot also means they could “help in predicting which patient may respond to a drug, in order to get the right treatments to the right patients as soon as possible,” said Katy Wack, PhD, vice president of clinical development at PathAI.
“Additionally, AI-based algorithms have been developed to provide more quantitative continuous scores to better capture change and discover new tissue-based biomarkers, which may be prognostic or predictive of clinical benefit,” she said.
Such tools are currently undergoing testing and validation for use in trials and diagnostically.
The standardization and reproducibility offered by AI-driven technology could facilitate more consistent diagnoses across different healthcare settings, Dr. Tai suggested. “As the integration of the technology with other blood-, imaging-, and omics-based techniques evolves, it may enable earlier detection of liver diseases, more accurate monitoring of disease progression, and better evaluation of treatment responses, ultimately improving patient care and outcomes.”
More Effective Clinical Trials
The limitations of conventional pathology may be responsible, at least in part, for the repeated failure of novel compounds to move from phase 2 to phase 3 clinical trials, and from clinical trials to approval, the sources agreed.
“In clinical trials, patients are subject to enrollment criteria using liver biopsies, which are scored with a composite scoring system involving four different histologic components to grade and stage the disease,” Dr. Wack noted.
However, there is wide variability between pathologists on biopsy scoring, and an individual pathologist presented with the same sample may give it a different score after some time has passed, she said.
That means “we are using a nonstandardized and inconsistent scoring system to determine whether a patient can be enrolled or not into a trial,” Dr. Wack said.
The change in the composite score over a follow-up period, usually 1-2 years, determines whether a patient has responded to the candidate drug and, ultimately, whether that drug could be considered for approval, Dr. Wack said.
Because scores at the baseline and follow-up timepoints are not precise and inconsistent across pathologist readers, and even the same reader over time, there are often many “false-positive” and “false-negative” responses that can result in potential therapeutics either failing or succeeding in clinical trials, she said.
To address this variability in biopsy scoring as it relates to clinical trials, regulatory bodies have recommended a consensus approach, in which multiple pathologists read the same biopsy independently and a median score is used, or pathologists convene to come to an agreement, Dr. Wack said.
“This is a very costly and burdensome approach and is still subject to interconsensus panel variation,” she said.
The introduction of digital pathology using validated digital viewers, where pathologists can view a glass slide digitally and pan and zoom over the image as they can with a microscope, means that many pathologists can read the same slide in parallel, she explained.
“If they need to discuss, they can do so efficiently over a phone call, each using their own computer screen and shared annotation tools to facilitate their discussion.”
Although this consensus approach can improve consistency, it still leads to variability in scoring across different groups of pathologists, Dr. Wack said.
This is where AI-assisted pathology comes into play.
“With this approach, a pathologist still views the image digitally, but an algorithm has predicted and highlighted key features and recommended quantitative scores,” she said.
This approach has been shown to increase precision for pathologists, thereby increasing reproducibility and standardizing scoring across timepoints and clinical trials.
What’s Ahead
These AI tools could address pathology’s lack of scalability, the result of a limited number of trained pathologists capable of doing liver biopsy assessments, Dr. Tai said.
“Digital pathology workflows enable the transformation of conventional histologic glass slides into large digital images using scanners, allowing significant productivity gains in terms of workflow and collaboration,” he said.
Although AI-assisted pathology tools are still being validated, their promise for improving diagnoses and uncovering new treatments is clear, the interviewees agreed.
Extending its use to stage fibrosis in other liver diseases, such as primary biliary cholangitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, and alcoholic liver disease, is also in progress on an experimental basis but will take time to validate.
“The landscape will evolve quickly in the coming 3-4 years,” Dr. Petitjean predicted. “To start, their intended use will likely be limited to a decision-support tool to enhance the performance of pathologists and perhaps stratify or triage cases sent for routine vs expert review.”
Dr. Petitjean even suggested that the increasing role of NITs and the amount of data being generated prospectively and retrospectively around liver biomarkers could mean that liver biopsies might not be needed one day.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Not Keeping Up With the Joneses
Dr. Jones and Dr. Joans are neurologists in town. I don’t know either one particularly well.
I don’t know their backstory, either, but they seem to have some intense competition going on.
Technically all of us neuros in the area compete with each other, but it’s pretty friendly. There are plenty of patients, and we all get along on the occasions we run into each other at the hospital or Costco or a meeting. Occasionally we call to bounce a case off each other. None of us advertise.
But Jones and Joans have kicked it up a notch. One got an EEG machine, the other got an EEG machine. A few weeks later one got a balance testing gadget, then the other got the same thing. One invested in all kinds of fancy devices to detect concussions, and shortly afterward so did the other one. Within a few months each bought their own Doppler equipment and hired an ultrasound tech. One took out a glossy ad in a local magazine, the next month so had the other. Both point out that they’ve been named on different “best doctor” lists. I assume it’s only a matter of time before each invests in their own MRI.
This kind of thing requires a lot of money to support, so both have jumped into the world of medical liens and hired NPs and PAs to increase patient volume.
I’m sure they both make more money than I ever will, and they can have it.
I don’t need that kind of complexity in my life. I have my own EMG/NCV machine, and beyond that I send all the testing (and complicated EMG/NCVs) to other facilities. I don’t want to figure out how to make payments on all those new gadgets, or hire staff to run them, or learn all the new codes I’d need (I do all my own coding, anyway), or decide if the advertising will pay for itself, or deal with liens.
I’m not even sure I want to be that busy. Obviously, I don’t want to be empty, but I also like having some degree of sanity. Time to review tests, type up notes, return calls ... all the things you have to do on the fly between patients, because if you don’t get them done at the office then you have to do them when you get home. Believe me, I already have enough going on there.
I have no desire to advertise that I’m the best neurologist in town (though I believe I’m the best in my building, since there isn’t another one) or to be the busiest, or to be involved in a game of one-upmanship with the nice group down the street.
If Drs. Jones and Joans want to do that, fine. More power to them.
For me, I’ve chosen simplicity in my practice, and prefer it.
I’m willing to trade that for money.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Dr. Jones and Dr. Joans are neurologists in town. I don’t know either one particularly well.
I don’t know their backstory, either, but they seem to have some intense competition going on.
Technically all of us neuros in the area compete with each other, but it’s pretty friendly. There are plenty of patients, and we all get along on the occasions we run into each other at the hospital or Costco or a meeting. Occasionally we call to bounce a case off each other. None of us advertise.
But Jones and Joans have kicked it up a notch. One got an EEG machine, the other got an EEG machine. A few weeks later one got a balance testing gadget, then the other got the same thing. One invested in all kinds of fancy devices to detect concussions, and shortly afterward so did the other one. Within a few months each bought their own Doppler equipment and hired an ultrasound tech. One took out a glossy ad in a local magazine, the next month so had the other. Both point out that they’ve been named on different “best doctor” lists. I assume it’s only a matter of time before each invests in their own MRI.
This kind of thing requires a lot of money to support, so both have jumped into the world of medical liens and hired NPs and PAs to increase patient volume.
I’m sure they both make more money than I ever will, and they can have it.
I don’t need that kind of complexity in my life. I have my own EMG/NCV machine, and beyond that I send all the testing (and complicated EMG/NCVs) to other facilities. I don’t want to figure out how to make payments on all those new gadgets, or hire staff to run them, or learn all the new codes I’d need (I do all my own coding, anyway), or decide if the advertising will pay for itself, or deal with liens.
I’m not even sure I want to be that busy. Obviously, I don’t want to be empty, but I also like having some degree of sanity. Time to review tests, type up notes, return calls ... all the things you have to do on the fly between patients, because if you don’t get them done at the office then you have to do them when you get home. Believe me, I already have enough going on there.
I have no desire to advertise that I’m the best neurologist in town (though I believe I’m the best in my building, since there isn’t another one) or to be the busiest, or to be involved in a game of one-upmanship with the nice group down the street.
If Drs. Jones and Joans want to do that, fine. More power to them.
For me, I’ve chosen simplicity in my practice, and prefer it.
I’m willing to trade that for money.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Dr. Jones and Dr. Joans are neurologists in town. I don’t know either one particularly well.
I don’t know their backstory, either, but they seem to have some intense competition going on.
Technically all of us neuros in the area compete with each other, but it’s pretty friendly. There are plenty of patients, and we all get along on the occasions we run into each other at the hospital or Costco or a meeting. Occasionally we call to bounce a case off each other. None of us advertise.
But Jones and Joans have kicked it up a notch. One got an EEG machine, the other got an EEG machine. A few weeks later one got a balance testing gadget, then the other got the same thing. One invested in all kinds of fancy devices to detect concussions, and shortly afterward so did the other one. Within a few months each bought their own Doppler equipment and hired an ultrasound tech. One took out a glossy ad in a local magazine, the next month so had the other. Both point out that they’ve been named on different “best doctor” lists. I assume it’s only a matter of time before each invests in their own MRI.
This kind of thing requires a lot of money to support, so both have jumped into the world of medical liens and hired NPs and PAs to increase patient volume.
I’m sure they both make more money than I ever will, and they can have it.
I don’t need that kind of complexity in my life. I have my own EMG/NCV machine, and beyond that I send all the testing (and complicated EMG/NCVs) to other facilities. I don’t want to figure out how to make payments on all those new gadgets, or hire staff to run them, or learn all the new codes I’d need (I do all my own coding, anyway), or decide if the advertising will pay for itself, or deal with liens.
I’m not even sure I want to be that busy. Obviously, I don’t want to be empty, but I also like having some degree of sanity. Time to review tests, type up notes, return calls ... all the things you have to do on the fly between patients, because if you don’t get them done at the office then you have to do them when you get home. Believe me, I already have enough going on there.
I have no desire to advertise that I’m the best neurologist in town (though I believe I’m the best in my building, since there isn’t another one) or to be the busiest, or to be involved in a game of one-upmanship with the nice group down the street.
If Drs. Jones and Joans want to do that, fine. More power to them.
For me, I’ve chosen simplicity in my practice, and prefer it.
I’m willing to trade that for money.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Phase3 Data: Atopic Dermatitis Symptoms Improved with Topical Roflumilast
TOPLINE:
(AD) in two phase 3 trials.
METHODOLOGY:
- Two randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, vehicle-controlled phase 3 trials, INTEGUMENT-1 (n = 654) and INTEGUMENT-2 (n = 683), enrolled patients aged ≥ 6 years with mild to moderate AD who were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to roflumilast cream 0.15%, a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, or vehicle cream once daily for 4 weeks.
- The primary efficacy endpoint was the Validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD (vIGA-AD) success at week 4, defined as a score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) plus improvement of at least two grades from baseline.
- Secondary endpoints included vIGA-AD success at week 4 in patients with a baseline score of 3, at least a four-point reduction in the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS), and at least a 75% reduction in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) at weeks 1, 2, and 4.
TAKEAWAY:
- Significantly more patients receiving roflumilast achieved vIGA-AD success at week 4 vs those in the vehicle group in INTEGUMENT-1 (32.0% vs 15.2%; P < .001) and INTEGUMENT-2 (28.9% vs 12.0%; P < .001), which was consistent across all age groups and in those with a baseline score of 3.
- Similarly, a greater proportion of patients treated with roflumilast vs vehicle achieved at least a four-point reduction in WI-NRS at weeks 1, 2, and 4, with improvements noted as early as 24 hours after the first application (P < .05 at all subsequent timepoints).
- The number of patients achieving EASI-75 and vIGA-AD scores of 0 or 1 was significantly higher with roflumilast than with vehicle at weeks 1, 2, and 4.
- Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate, with only 0.9% of the patients experiencing serious TEAEs in each trial. More than 95% of the patients showed no signs of irritation, and over 90% reported no or mild sensation at the application site.
IN PRACTICE:
The two phase 3 randomized clinical trials of patients with AD treated with roflumilast cream 0.15% “demonstrated improvement across multiple efficacy endpoints, including reducing pruritus within 24 hours after application, with favorable safety and tolerability,” the authors wrote. “Additional research, including subgroup analyses, will provide more data regarding the efficacy and safety of roflumilast cream 0.15%, in patients with AD,” they added.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Eric L. Simpson, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, and was published online on September 18 in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
A short duration, a minimum age limit of 6 years, and the lack of an active comparator may influence the interpretation and generalizability of the results.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was sponsored by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Simpson received grants and personal fees from Arcutis during this study. Three authors reported being employees and/or stockholders of Arcutis, two other authors reported patents for Arcutis, and several authors declared having various ties with various sources, including Arcutis.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
(AD) in two phase 3 trials.
METHODOLOGY:
- Two randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, vehicle-controlled phase 3 trials, INTEGUMENT-1 (n = 654) and INTEGUMENT-2 (n = 683), enrolled patients aged ≥ 6 years with mild to moderate AD who were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to roflumilast cream 0.15%, a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, or vehicle cream once daily for 4 weeks.
- The primary efficacy endpoint was the Validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD (vIGA-AD) success at week 4, defined as a score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) plus improvement of at least two grades from baseline.
- Secondary endpoints included vIGA-AD success at week 4 in patients with a baseline score of 3, at least a four-point reduction in the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS), and at least a 75% reduction in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) at weeks 1, 2, and 4.
TAKEAWAY:
- Significantly more patients receiving roflumilast achieved vIGA-AD success at week 4 vs those in the vehicle group in INTEGUMENT-1 (32.0% vs 15.2%; P < .001) and INTEGUMENT-2 (28.9% vs 12.0%; P < .001), which was consistent across all age groups and in those with a baseline score of 3.
- Similarly, a greater proportion of patients treated with roflumilast vs vehicle achieved at least a four-point reduction in WI-NRS at weeks 1, 2, and 4, with improvements noted as early as 24 hours after the first application (P < .05 at all subsequent timepoints).
- The number of patients achieving EASI-75 and vIGA-AD scores of 0 or 1 was significantly higher with roflumilast than with vehicle at weeks 1, 2, and 4.
- Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate, with only 0.9% of the patients experiencing serious TEAEs in each trial. More than 95% of the patients showed no signs of irritation, and over 90% reported no or mild sensation at the application site.
IN PRACTICE:
The two phase 3 randomized clinical trials of patients with AD treated with roflumilast cream 0.15% “demonstrated improvement across multiple efficacy endpoints, including reducing pruritus within 24 hours after application, with favorable safety and tolerability,” the authors wrote. “Additional research, including subgroup analyses, will provide more data regarding the efficacy and safety of roflumilast cream 0.15%, in patients with AD,” they added.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Eric L. Simpson, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, and was published online on September 18 in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
A short duration, a minimum age limit of 6 years, and the lack of an active comparator may influence the interpretation and generalizability of the results.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was sponsored by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Simpson received grants and personal fees from Arcutis during this study. Three authors reported being employees and/or stockholders of Arcutis, two other authors reported patents for Arcutis, and several authors declared having various ties with various sources, including Arcutis.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
(AD) in two phase 3 trials.
METHODOLOGY:
- Two randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, vehicle-controlled phase 3 trials, INTEGUMENT-1 (n = 654) and INTEGUMENT-2 (n = 683), enrolled patients aged ≥ 6 years with mild to moderate AD who were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to roflumilast cream 0.15%, a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, or vehicle cream once daily for 4 weeks.
- The primary efficacy endpoint was the Validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD (vIGA-AD) success at week 4, defined as a score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) plus improvement of at least two grades from baseline.
- Secondary endpoints included vIGA-AD success at week 4 in patients with a baseline score of 3, at least a four-point reduction in the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS), and at least a 75% reduction in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) at weeks 1, 2, and 4.
TAKEAWAY:
- Significantly more patients receiving roflumilast achieved vIGA-AD success at week 4 vs those in the vehicle group in INTEGUMENT-1 (32.0% vs 15.2%; P < .001) and INTEGUMENT-2 (28.9% vs 12.0%; P < .001), which was consistent across all age groups and in those with a baseline score of 3.
- Similarly, a greater proportion of patients treated with roflumilast vs vehicle achieved at least a four-point reduction in WI-NRS at weeks 1, 2, and 4, with improvements noted as early as 24 hours after the first application (P < .05 at all subsequent timepoints).
- The number of patients achieving EASI-75 and vIGA-AD scores of 0 or 1 was significantly higher with roflumilast than with vehicle at weeks 1, 2, and 4.
- Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate, with only 0.9% of the patients experiencing serious TEAEs in each trial. More than 95% of the patients showed no signs of irritation, and over 90% reported no or mild sensation at the application site.
IN PRACTICE:
The two phase 3 randomized clinical trials of patients with AD treated with roflumilast cream 0.15% “demonstrated improvement across multiple efficacy endpoints, including reducing pruritus within 24 hours after application, with favorable safety and tolerability,” the authors wrote. “Additional research, including subgroup analyses, will provide more data regarding the efficacy and safety of roflumilast cream 0.15%, in patients with AD,” they added.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Eric L. Simpson, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, and was published online on September 18 in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
A short duration, a minimum age limit of 6 years, and the lack of an active comparator may influence the interpretation and generalizability of the results.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was sponsored by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Simpson received grants and personal fees from Arcutis during this study. Three authors reported being employees and/or stockholders of Arcutis, two other authors reported patents for Arcutis, and several authors declared having various ties with various sources, including Arcutis.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Once-Weekly Insulin: A Game-Changer for Primary Care
Presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 congress in Madrid, the QWINT-2 study established that. Study participants were, however, receiving noninsulin glucose-lowering agents, including glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists.
Slightly higher rates of mild to moderate hypoglycemia were noted with efsitora compared with degludec, but no significant differences in severe hypoglycemia were observed. Nor was there any difference in weight gain between groups, and adverse events were balanced between study arms.
This study positions insulin efsitora alongside once-weekly insulin icodec as a novel long-acting insulin therapy. In the ONWARDS 3 trial, icodec was noninferior to once-daily degludec, in terms of A1c reduction. It also had an adverse effect profile like that of efsitora with respect to hypoglycemia and weight change.
So, what are the implications of a once-weekly insulin for primary care?
“Game-changer” is an overused term, but from the perspective of primary care, it applies to once-weekly insulin.
I initiate basal insulin much less frequently these days, given the multitude of noninsulin options now available to me in primary care, particularly the GLP-1 receptor agonists and the dual GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonists. The American Diabetes Association/EASD 2022 consensus report also reminds me that GLP-1 receptor agonists should be considered in all individuals with T2D before insulin, unless they are contraindicated. GLP-1 receptor agonists are insulin-sparing agents with a lower injection burden and a lower risk for hypoglycemia. They also promote significant weight loss compared with basal insulin.
But progressive beta-cell decline and insulin deficiency are among the key pathophysiologic abnormalities in T2D. Eventually, many patients with T2D, despite lifestyle interventions and medication adherence, do require insulin.
Understandably, many of my patients have reservations about commencing insulin. Significant stigma about starting insulin persists, because others often perceive insulin use as a failure to manage T2D. Patients frequently fear injections, and many are worried about how insulin therapy, specifically the risk for hypoglycemia, will affect their daily activities such as driving.
Clinicians often experience therapeutic inertia, hesitating to escalate therapy to insulin because of a lack of confidence and competence, which often results from inadequate education. Lengthy referral-to-treatment waiting times are common in the United Kingdom, and there is concern about the workload implications associated with insulin initiation.
Workload is a particular concern for my community nursing colleagues, who must visit some of my more frail and functionally dependent patients daily to administer their insulin.
In addition, the delivery of high-quality diabetes care in nursing homes, particularly for patients requiring insulin, has been a perennial challenge in the UK, again because of a lack of confidence and competence due to an absence of education for nursing and ancillary staff.
Moreover, it is not appropriate to switch many of these frail patients to noninsulin therapies because of their insulinopenia, as well as the significant weight (and sometimes muscle) loss associated with GLP-1 receptor agonists. Also, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors are associated with a risk for volume depletion and diabetic ketoacidosis.
I believe that the availability of a once-weekly insulin will help overcome many of the above barriers.
From a patient’s viewpoint, simplification of insulin therapy with once-weekly insulin will substantially reduce the number of injections required (from 365 to 52 over 1 year). This change will improve compliance and concordance even in patients with injection anxiety. These results will hopefully translate into improved glycemic control and a lower risk for the complications of T2D. Real-world evidence for these outcomes is not yet available, however. Also, the reduced amount of insulin consumables that once-weekly dosing requires will also help improve the environmental footprint of insulin therapy.
From a clinician’s viewpoint, once-weekly insulin may seem less daunting and could reduce therapeutic inertia, thus facilitating earlier initiation of insulin therapy and reducing the risk for complications of T2D. Although education remains pivotal, this ease of dosing may be more acceptable to many clinicians because it has less of an effect on workload. This dosing could even save time because it requires less intensive follow-up than daily basal insulin does.
My community nurse colleagues were ecstatic when I mentioned that once-weekly basal insulin was on the horizon. This formulation could reduce the number of weekly home visits from 7 to just 1, thus freeing up considerable healthcare resources. And if once-weekly insulin is coupled with continuous glucose monitoring, then remote review of glucose data can further streamline and optimize the management of T2D in frail older patients. I am sure that my nursing-home colleagues will be equally enthusiastic about simplifying insulin regimens and monitoring.
Finally, an unanswered question is how I manage “sick days” for patients on weekly insulin dosing. Of course, the golden rule of never stopping insulin during intercurrent illness must be followed, but is any dose titration required for once-weekly insulin? I suspect not, but do I need to consider adding a once-daily basal insulin or rapid-acting insulin to mitigate the glucose counterregulatory hormone response during acute illness? Initially, I will be asking specialist diabetes teams for further advice on managing sick days.
In conclusion, once-weekly dosing of insulin is a game-changer for primary care and could finally be the driver to quash therapeutic inertia and address common patient barriers when escalation to insulin is required.
Dr. Fernando, general practitioner partner, North Berwick Health Centre, North Berwick, Scotland, disclosed ties with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, and Sanofi.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 congress in Madrid, the QWINT-2 study established that. Study participants were, however, receiving noninsulin glucose-lowering agents, including glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists.
Slightly higher rates of mild to moderate hypoglycemia were noted with efsitora compared with degludec, but no significant differences in severe hypoglycemia were observed. Nor was there any difference in weight gain between groups, and adverse events were balanced between study arms.
This study positions insulin efsitora alongside once-weekly insulin icodec as a novel long-acting insulin therapy. In the ONWARDS 3 trial, icodec was noninferior to once-daily degludec, in terms of A1c reduction. It also had an adverse effect profile like that of efsitora with respect to hypoglycemia and weight change.
So, what are the implications of a once-weekly insulin for primary care?
“Game-changer” is an overused term, but from the perspective of primary care, it applies to once-weekly insulin.
I initiate basal insulin much less frequently these days, given the multitude of noninsulin options now available to me in primary care, particularly the GLP-1 receptor agonists and the dual GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonists. The American Diabetes Association/EASD 2022 consensus report also reminds me that GLP-1 receptor agonists should be considered in all individuals with T2D before insulin, unless they are contraindicated. GLP-1 receptor agonists are insulin-sparing agents with a lower injection burden and a lower risk for hypoglycemia. They also promote significant weight loss compared with basal insulin.
But progressive beta-cell decline and insulin deficiency are among the key pathophysiologic abnormalities in T2D. Eventually, many patients with T2D, despite lifestyle interventions and medication adherence, do require insulin.
Understandably, many of my patients have reservations about commencing insulin. Significant stigma about starting insulin persists, because others often perceive insulin use as a failure to manage T2D. Patients frequently fear injections, and many are worried about how insulin therapy, specifically the risk for hypoglycemia, will affect their daily activities such as driving.
Clinicians often experience therapeutic inertia, hesitating to escalate therapy to insulin because of a lack of confidence and competence, which often results from inadequate education. Lengthy referral-to-treatment waiting times are common in the United Kingdom, and there is concern about the workload implications associated with insulin initiation.
Workload is a particular concern for my community nursing colleagues, who must visit some of my more frail and functionally dependent patients daily to administer their insulin.
In addition, the delivery of high-quality diabetes care in nursing homes, particularly for patients requiring insulin, has been a perennial challenge in the UK, again because of a lack of confidence and competence due to an absence of education for nursing and ancillary staff.
Moreover, it is not appropriate to switch many of these frail patients to noninsulin therapies because of their insulinopenia, as well as the significant weight (and sometimes muscle) loss associated with GLP-1 receptor agonists. Also, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors are associated with a risk for volume depletion and diabetic ketoacidosis.
I believe that the availability of a once-weekly insulin will help overcome many of the above barriers.
From a patient’s viewpoint, simplification of insulin therapy with once-weekly insulin will substantially reduce the number of injections required (from 365 to 52 over 1 year). This change will improve compliance and concordance even in patients with injection anxiety. These results will hopefully translate into improved glycemic control and a lower risk for the complications of T2D. Real-world evidence for these outcomes is not yet available, however. Also, the reduced amount of insulin consumables that once-weekly dosing requires will also help improve the environmental footprint of insulin therapy.
From a clinician’s viewpoint, once-weekly insulin may seem less daunting and could reduce therapeutic inertia, thus facilitating earlier initiation of insulin therapy and reducing the risk for complications of T2D. Although education remains pivotal, this ease of dosing may be more acceptable to many clinicians because it has less of an effect on workload. This dosing could even save time because it requires less intensive follow-up than daily basal insulin does.
My community nurse colleagues were ecstatic when I mentioned that once-weekly basal insulin was on the horizon. This formulation could reduce the number of weekly home visits from 7 to just 1, thus freeing up considerable healthcare resources. And if once-weekly insulin is coupled with continuous glucose monitoring, then remote review of glucose data can further streamline and optimize the management of T2D in frail older patients. I am sure that my nursing-home colleagues will be equally enthusiastic about simplifying insulin regimens and monitoring.
Finally, an unanswered question is how I manage “sick days” for patients on weekly insulin dosing. Of course, the golden rule of never stopping insulin during intercurrent illness must be followed, but is any dose titration required for once-weekly insulin? I suspect not, but do I need to consider adding a once-daily basal insulin or rapid-acting insulin to mitigate the glucose counterregulatory hormone response during acute illness? Initially, I will be asking specialist diabetes teams for further advice on managing sick days.
In conclusion, once-weekly dosing of insulin is a game-changer for primary care and could finally be the driver to quash therapeutic inertia and address common patient barriers when escalation to insulin is required.
Dr. Fernando, general practitioner partner, North Berwick Health Centre, North Berwick, Scotland, disclosed ties with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, and Sanofi.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 congress in Madrid, the QWINT-2 study established that. Study participants were, however, receiving noninsulin glucose-lowering agents, including glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists.
Slightly higher rates of mild to moderate hypoglycemia were noted with efsitora compared with degludec, but no significant differences in severe hypoglycemia were observed. Nor was there any difference in weight gain between groups, and adverse events were balanced between study arms.
This study positions insulin efsitora alongside once-weekly insulin icodec as a novel long-acting insulin therapy. In the ONWARDS 3 trial, icodec was noninferior to once-daily degludec, in terms of A1c reduction. It also had an adverse effect profile like that of efsitora with respect to hypoglycemia and weight change.
So, what are the implications of a once-weekly insulin for primary care?
“Game-changer” is an overused term, but from the perspective of primary care, it applies to once-weekly insulin.
I initiate basal insulin much less frequently these days, given the multitude of noninsulin options now available to me in primary care, particularly the GLP-1 receptor agonists and the dual GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonists. The American Diabetes Association/EASD 2022 consensus report also reminds me that GLP-1 receptor agonists should be considered in all individuals with T2D before insulin, unless they are contraindicated. GLP-1 receptor agonists are insulin-sparing agents with a lower injection burden and a lower risk for hypoglycemia. They also promote significant weight loss compared with basal insulin.
But progressive beta-cell decline and insulin deficiency are among the key pathophysiologic abnormalities in T2D. Eventually, many patients with T2D, despite lifestyle interventions and medication adherence, do require insulin.
Understandably, many of my patients have reservations about commencing insulin. Significant stigma about starting insulin persists, because others often perceive insulin use as a failure to manage T2D. Patients frequently fear injections, and many are worried about how insulin therapy, specifically the risk for hypoglycemia, will affect their daily activities such as driving.
Clinicians often experience therapeutic inertia, hesitating to escalate therapy to insulin because of a lack of confidence and competence, which often results from inadequate education. Lengthy referral-to-treatment waiting times are common in the United Kingdom, and there is concern about the workload implications associated with insulin initiation.
Workload is a particular concern for my community nursing colleagues, who must visit some of my more frail and functionally dependent patients daily to administer their insulin.
In addition, the delivery of high-quality diabetes care in nursing homes, particularly for patients requiring insulin, has been a perennial challenge in the UK, again because of a lack of confidence and competence due to an absence of education for nursing and ancillary staff.
Moreover, it is not appropriate to switch many of these frail patients to noninsulin therapies because of their insulinopenia, as well as the significant weight (and sometimes muscle) loss associated with GLP-1 receptor agonists. Also, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors are associated with a risk for volume depletion and diabetic ketoacidosis.
I believe that the availability of a once-weekly insulin will help overcome many of the above barriers.
From a patient’s viewpoint, simplification of insulin therapy with once-weekly insulin will substantially reduce the number of injections required (from 365 to 52 over 1 year). This change will improve compliance and concordance even in patients with injection anxiety. These results will hopefully translate into improved glycemic control and a lower risk for the complications of T2D. Real-world evidence for these outcomes is not yet available, however. Also, the reduced amount of insulin consumables that once-weekly dosing requires will also help improve the environmental footprint of insulin therapy.
From a clinician’s viewpoint, once-weekly insulin may seem less daunting and could reduce therapeutic inertia, thus facilitating earlier initiation of insulin therapy and reducing the risk for complications of T2D. Although education remains pivotal, this ease of dosing may be more acceptable to many clinicians because it has less of an effect on workload. This dosing could even save time because it requires less intensive follow-up than daily basal insulin does.
My community nurse colleagues were ecstatic when I mentioned that once-weekly basal insulin was on the horizon. This formulation could reduce the number of weekly home visits from 7 to just 1, thus freeing up considerable healthcare resources. And if once-weekly insulin is coupled with continuous glucose monitoring, then remote review of glucose data can further streamline and optimize the management of T2D in frail older patients. I am sure that my nursing-home colleagues will be equally enthusiastic about simplifying insulin regimens and monitoring.
Finally, an unanswered question is how I manage “sick days” for patients on weekly insulin dosing. Of course, the golden rule of never stopping insulin during intercurrent illness must be followed, but is any dose titration required for once-weekly insulin? I suspect not, but do I need to consider adding a once-daily basal insulin or rapid-acting insulin to mitigate the glucose counterregulatory hormone response during acute illness? Initially, I will be asking specialist diabetes teams for further advice on managing sick days.
In conclusion, once-weekly dosing of insulin is a game-changer for primary care and could finally be the driver to quash therapeutic inertia and address common patient barriers when escalation to insulin is required.
Dr. Fernando, general practitioner partner, North Berwick Health Centre, North Berwick, Scotland, disclosed ties with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, and Sanofi.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Uneven Surge in Diabetes in the United States
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Over 37 million people in the United States have diabetes, and its prevalence is only expected to increase in the coming years, making identifying high-risk demographic groups particularly crucial.
- To assess recent national trends and disparities in diabetes prevalence among US adults, researchers conducted an observational study using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and included 5,312,827 observations from 2012 to 2022.
- Diabetes was defined on the basis of a previous self-reported diagnosis using standardized questionnaires.
- The sociodemographic factors of age, sex, race, education, physical activity, income, and body mass index were used to establish the risk indicators for diabetes diagnosis.
- Age-standardized diabetes prevalence and the association between risk factors and diabetes were assessed both overall and across various sociodemographic groups.
TAKEAWAY:
- The overall prevalence of diabetes increased by 18.6% (P < .001) from 2012 to 2022, with the highest prevalence observed among non-Hispanic Black individuals (15.8%) and people aged ≥ 65 years (23.86%).
- The likelihood of being diagnosed with diabetes was 1.15 times higher in men than in women, 5.16 times higher in adults aged 45-64 years than in those aged 18-24 years, and 3.64 times higher in those with obesity than in those with normal weight.
- The risk for being diagnosed with diabetes was 1.60 times higher among Hispanic individuals, 1.67 times higher among non-Hispanic Asian individuals, and 2.10 times higher among non-Hispanic Black individuals than among non-Hispanic White individuals.
- Individuals with a college education and higher income level were 24% and 41% less likely, respectively, to be diagnosed with diabetes.
IN PRACTICE:
“Improving access to quality care, implementing diabetes prevention programs focusing on high-risk groups, and addressing social determinants through multilevel interventions may help curb the diabetes epidemic in the United States,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Sulakshan Neupane, MS, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, was published online in Diabetes, Obesity, and Metabolism.
LIMITATIONS:
The self-reported diagnoses and lack of clinical data may have introduced bias. Diabetes prevalence could not be analyzed in South-East Asian and South Asian populations owing to limitations in the data collection process.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was not supported by any funding, and no potential author disclosures or conflicts were identified.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Over 37 million people in the United States have diabetes, and its prevalence is only expected to increase in the coming years, making identifying high-risk demographic groups particularly crucial.
- To assess recent national trends and disparities in diabetes prevalence among US adults, researchers conducted an observational study using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and included 5,312,827 observations from 2012 to 2022.
- Diabetes was defined on the basis of a previous self-reported diagnosis using standardized questionnaires.
- The sociodemographic factors of age, sex, race, education, physical activity, income, and body mass index were used to establish the risk indicators for diabetes diagnosis.
- Age-standardized diabetes prevalence and the association between risk factors and diabetes were assessed both overall and across various sociodemographic groups.
TAKEAWAY:
- The overall prevalence of diabetes increased by 18.6% (P < .001) from 2012 to 2022, with the highest prevalence observed among non-Hispanic Black individuals (15.8%) and people aged ≥ 65 years (23.86%).
- The likelihood of being diagnosed with diabetes was 1.15 times higher in men than in women, 5.16 times higher in adults aged 45-64 years than in those aged 18-24 years, and 3.64 times higher in those with obesity than in those with normal weight.
- The risk for being diagnosed with diabetes was 1.60 times higher among Hispanic individuals, 1.67 times higher among non-Hispanic Asian individuals, and 2.10 times higher among non-Hispanic Black individuals than among non-Hispanic White individuals.
- Individuals with a college education and higher income level were 24% and 41% less likely, respectively, to be diagnosed with diabetes.
IN PRACTICE:
“Improving access to quality care, implementing diabetes prevention programs focusing on high-risk groups, and addressing social determinants through multilevel interventions may help curb the diabetes epidemic in the United States,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Sulakshan Neupane, MS, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, was published online in Diabetes, Obesity, and Metabolism.
LIMITATIONS:
The self-reported diagnoses and lack of clinical data may have introduced bias. Diabetes prevalence could not be analyzed in South-East Asian and South Asian populations owing to limitations in the data collection process.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was not supported by any funding, and no potential author disclosures or conflicts were identified.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Over 37 million people in the United States have diabetes, and its prevalence is only expected to increase in the coming years, making identifying high-risk demographic groups particularly crucial.
- To assess recent national trends and disparities in diabetes prevalence among US adults, researchers conducted an observational study using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and included 5,312,827 observations from 2012 to 2022.
- Diabetes was defined on the basis of a previous self-reported diagnosis using standardized questionnaires.
- The sociodemographic factors of age, sex, race, education, physical activity, income, and body mass index were used to establish the risk indicators for diabetes diagnosis.
- Age-standardized diabetes prevalence and the association between risk factors and diabetes were assessed both overall and across various sociodemographic groups.
TAKEAWAY:
- The overall prevalence of diabetes increased by 18.6% (P < .001) from 2012 to 2022, with the highest prevalence observed among non-Hispanic Black individuals (15.8%) and people aged ≥ 65 years (23.86%).
- The likelihood of being diagnosed with diabetes was 1.15 times higher in men than in women, 5.16 times higher in adults aged 45-64 years than in those aged 18-24 years, and 3.64 times higher in those with obesity than in those with normal weight.
- The risk for being diagnosed with diabetes was 1.60 times higher among Hispanic individuals, 1.67 times higher among non-Hispanic Asian individuals, and 2.10 times higher among non-Hispanic Black individuals than among non-Hispanic White individuals.
- Individuals with a college education and higher income level were 24% and 41% less likely, respectively, to be diagnosed with diabetes.
IN PRACTICE:
“Improving access to quality care, implementing diabetes prevention programs focusing on high-risk groups, and addressing social determinants through multilevel interventions may help curb the diabetes epidemic in the United States,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Sulakshan Neupane, MS, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, was published online in Diabetes, Obesity, and Metabolism.
LIMITATIONS:
The self-reported diagnoses and lack of clinical data may have introduced bias. Diabetes prevalence could not be analyzed in South-East Asian and South Asian populations owing to limitations in the data collection process.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was not supported by any funding, and no potential author disclosures or conflicts were identified.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Abnormal TSH: Forget it or Fret it?
If you’re like most primary care clinicians, your email inbox is flooded with messages from patients with questions about lab results. A common query: Should I be worried about an abnormal value on a test of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH)?
For guidance, this news organization spoke with Angela Leung, MD, associate professor of medicine in the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism at the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine and an endocrinologist at UCLA and the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, and Karen Tsai, MD, assistant clinical professor of endocrinology at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, California. The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Question: Why do you usually start by measuring TSH levels?
Dr. Leung: We need to measure the thyroid status in a way that integrates more information about the long-term thyroid status and not small changes in thyroid hormone levels. TSH is made by the pituitary gland in the brain, which integrates information about the signals of high and low levels from each of the different thyroid hormones.
Now we can measure the actual thyroid hormones — primarily we’re talking about T3 and T4 — but if we do that, we are relying on a single snapshot in the bloodstream at that moment. The levels might change throughout the day in response to ongoing metabolism and outside stresses. So we usually start by measuring the TSH level, which is a good representation of the compilation of all those things over the past 30 days or so.
Question: How do you describe a low TSH result to patients?
Dr. Leung: Whenever we encounter a low TSH level, we want to repeat the test because it is a dynamic test, and it can change in response to several factors. If it is indeed low, we’re thinking that perhaps there’s a little bit of extra thyroid hormone in the body. It can be either temporary or more chronic, but that higher amount of thyroid hormone is telling the pituitary gland in the brain to start making less. So TSH levels go low when we need less thyroid hormone.
Question: What are some of the reasons for a low TSH level?
Dr. Leung: One of the most common situations for a temporarily low TSH level I see is what we call nonthyroidal illness, like a common cold or just being under the weather. Other things that can artifactually lower the TSH level could be the use of steroids, such as prednisone for asthma or some sort of a rheumatologic condition. Also, the TSH level could be low if a person has been recently exposed to very high amounts of iodine, such as iodinated contrast needed for a CT scan.
If the TSH level remains persistently low, usually in the presence of high thyroid hormone (T3 and/or T4) levels, the most common reason for hyperthyroidism is Graves disease, in which there are autoantibodies — measurable in the blood — that can stimulate the thyroid gland in the neck to make extra thyroid hormone.
Question: And what does an elevated TSH level mean?
Dr. Leung: Again, we want to confirm that it is elevated. We need at least two tests to confirm a high TSH level. A persistently elevated TSH level is a signal there might be low thyroid hormone levels in the body, which could be transient or more longer lasting.
Question: What are some of the most common causes of an elevated TSH level?
Dr. Leung: If the TSH level is confirmed high and the thyroid hormone levels are low, the most common cause of hypothyroidism here in the United States is Hashimoto thyroiditis.
Globally, iodine deficiency is the most common reason for hypothyroidism and may be a problem in parts of the globe where there are endemically low iodine levels in soil, crops, and the food supply like not having enough iodized salt. The thyroid is reliant on having enough iodine as a micronutrient to make thyroid hormone. If it doesn’t, the thyroid really can’t make thyroid hormone. It’s important to also remember, though, that having too much iodine can result in hypo- or hyperthyroidism.
Dr. Tsai: I take a glance at their medication list. Some of the patients are on methimazole or levothyroxine, and those medications should be adjusted first to normalize the TSH level. Other medications like lithium and amiodarone can also cause elevated TSH levels. We are also seeing a lot of patients on cancer therapies, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapy, that can cause an elevated TSH level.
Question: If the repeat TSH test shows that TSH levels are still elevated, what comes next in your workup?
Dr. Tsai: If there’s not a real clear-cut diagnosis, I’ll order the thyroid peroxidase antibody and the thyroglobulin antibody, although thyroid peroxidase antibody, which is indicative of autoimmune thyroid disease, alone is usually sufficient to make that diagnosis.
Question: Should clinicians follow thyroid antibodies over time?
Dr. Tsai: I usually don’t repeat the antibody tests. In those circumstances where patients who were diagnosed 50-60 years ago and perhaps it is unknown if they had the thyroid antibodies measured at the time and now they’re saying, “Do I actually have Hashimoto’s?” or “Do I really need to continue this for the rest of my life?” I do repeat antibody tests to help gauge if the patient’s levothyroxine can be stopped.
Question: How important is it to follow T4 or T3 levels?
Dr. Tsai: T4 and T3 levels can help differentiate overt thyroid dysfunction — where T3 and/or T4 levels will be abnormal — from subclinical thyroid dysfunction — where T3 and T4 levels would be normal. In general, although we do not fully appreciate the best metric to monitor hypo- or hyperthyroidism, because some patients with a normal TSH level still may have symptoms of thyroid dysfunction, these peripheral thyroid hormone levels are usually the most helpful at the time of initial diagnosis.
Question: What are your criteria for initiating treatment for hypothyroidism?
Dr. Tsai: If the TSH level > 10 mIU/L, I recommend levothyroxine hormone replacement. A lot of published data support clinical benefit in this group.
There is a gray area in those patients who have a TSH level higher than the upper limit of the reference range but less than 10. If the patient doesn’t have overt hypothyroid symptoms, I discuss the findings with the patient but don’t really feel eager to treat. I recommend checking the levels again in 6 months to see where that TSH goes, and if it worsens or becomes greater than 10 mIU/L, I then recommend levothyroxine hormone replacement.
It is also important to note that a TSH level of 5-7 may be an acceptable range for older patients, and they do not require levothyroxine.
The other category is patients whose TSH level is greater than the upper limit of the normal reference range but less than 10 and with overt hypothyroid symptoms such as fatigue, unintentional weight gain, constipation, or cold intolerance. In these patients, it is worthwhile to try a low dose of levothyroxine (25-50 mcg/d) and repeat TSH and free T4 tests in 6-8 weeks and see if the TSH level normalizes.
Dr. Leung: When you look at subclinical hypothyroidism, the situation of an isolated high TSH level in the setting of normal T4 levels, if the TSH level is mildly elevated in the 5-7 mIU/L range, there’s a 60% chance that it will normalize within 6 months.
Going back to Karen’s point, a lot of people are started and maintained on low doses of thyroid hormone forever and ever. A recent study on levothyroxine use found half of the prescriptions were unnecessary.
Question: In an era where many patients obtain much of their health information from TikTok, what’s your approach with patients with a normal TSH level who feel that they should have more testing or start treatment?
Dr. Tsai: Fatigue is one of the common referrals we get into our endocrinology practice, and everyone is convinced that their thyroid is the culprit. It is important to note, however, that fatigue can be due to different diseases such as anemia, depression, sleep disorders, or a recent viral illness.
TSH tests are readily available and cheap. I don’t mind ordering the lab test again if it helps give the patient some reassurance. I also find that patients are relieved once they hear from their endocrinologist that their thyroid is unlikely to be the cause of their fatigue.
Some other endocrine causes we may consider additionally working up include adrenal insufficiency, vitamin D deficiency, and diabetes. A comprehensive metabolic panel and complete blood count is part of my workup to rule out any gross electrolyte abnormalities or any new diagnosis of anemia, liver disease, or chronic kidney disease.
Question: What are your criteria for recommending that someone see an endocrinologist?
Dr. Tsai: Our primary care colleagues can do a workup and interpretation of thyroid function tests in most cases. In the situations where the thyroid function test results are discordant (ie, elevated TSH and elevated free T4 levels or low TSH and low free T4 levels) or difficult to interpret, it would be appropriate to refer the patient to an endocrinologist.
One of the common referrals that we do get from the community is a patient’s thyroid function tests going from hyperthyroid to hypothyroid without a clear explanation or the patient is suboptimally controlled with levothyroxine or methimazole. In those circumstances, it would be worthwhile to send to an endocrinologist try to discern an underlying cause or for optimization of medication.
Dr. Leung and Dr. Tsai had no financial disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
If you’re like most primary care clinicians, your email inbox is flooded with messages from patients with questions about lab results. A common query: Should I be worried about an abnormal value on a test of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH)?
For guidance, this news organization spoke with Angela Leung, MD, associate professor of medicine in the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism at the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine and an endocrinologist at UCLA and the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, and Karen Tsai, MD, assistant clinical professor of endocrinology at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, California. The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Question: Why do you usually start by measuring TSH levels?
Dr. Leung: We need to measure the thyroid status in a way that integrates more information about the long-term thyroid status and not small changes in thyroid hormone levels. TSH is made by the pituitary gland in the brain, which integrates information about the signals of high and low levels from each of the different thyroid hormones.
Now we can measure the actual thyroid hormones — primarily we’re talking about T3 and T4 — but if we do that, we are relying on a single snapshot in the bloodstream at that moment. The levels might change throughout the day in response to ongoing metabolism and outside stresses. So we usually start by measuring the TSH level, which is a good representation of the compilation of all those things over the past 30 days or so.
Question: How do you describe a low TSH result to patients?
Dr. Leung: Whenever we encounter a low TSH level, we want to repeat the test because it is a dynamic test, and it can change in response to several factors. If it is indeed low, we’re thinking that perhaps there’s a little bit of extra thyroid hormone in the body. It can be either temporary or more chronic, but that higher amount of thyroid hormone is telling the pituitary gland in the brain to start making less. So TSH levels go low when we need less thyroid hormone.
Question: What are some of the reasons for a low TSH level?
Dr. Leung: One of the most common situations for a temporarily low TSH level I see is what we call nonthyroidal illness, like a common cold or just being under the weather. Other things that can artifactually lower the TSH level could be the use of steroids, such as prednisone for asthma or some sort of a rheumatologic condition. Also, the TSH level could be low if a person has been recently exposed to very high amounts of iodine, such as iodinated contrast needed for a CT scan.
If the TSH level remains persistently low, usually in the presence of high thyroid hormone (T3 and/or T4) levels, the most common reason for hyperthyroidism is Graves disease, in which there are autoantibodies — measurable in the blood — that can stimulate the thyroid gland in the neck to make extra thyroid hormone.
Question: And what does an elevated TSH level mean?
Dr. Leung: Again, we want to confirm that it is elevated. We need at least two tests to confirm a high TSH level. A persistently elevated TSH level is a signal there might be low thyroid hormone levels in the body, which could be transient or more longer lasting.
Question: What are some of the most common causes of an elevated TSH level?
Dr. Leung: If the TSH level is confirmed high and the thyroid hormone levels are low, the most common cause of hypothyroidism here in the United States is Hashimoto thyroiditis.
Globally, iodine deficiency is the most common reason for hypothyroidism and may be a problem in parts of the globe where there are endemically low iodine levels in soil, crops, and the food supply like not having enough iodized salt. The thyroid is reliant on having enough iodine as a micronutrient to make thyroid hormone. If it doesn’t, the thyroid really can’t make thyroid hormone. It’s important to also remember, though, that having too much iodine can result in hypo- or hyperthyroidism.
Dr. Tsai: I take a glance at their medication list. Some of the patients are on methimazole or levothyroxine, and those medications should be adjusted first to normalize the TSH level. Other medications like lithium and amiodarone can also cause elevated TSH levels. We are also seeing a lot of patients on cancer therapies, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapy, that can cause an elevated TSH level.
Question: If the repeat TSH test shows that TSH levels are still elevated, what comes next in your workup?
Dr. Tsai: If there’s not a real clear-cut diagnosis, I’ll order the thyroid peroxidase antibody and the thyroglobulin antibody, although thyroid peroxidase antibody, which is indicative of autoimmune thyroid disease, alone is usually sufficient to make that diagnosis.
Question: Should clinicians follow thyroid antibodies over time?
Dr. Tsai: I usually don’t repeat the antibody tests. In those circumstances where patients who were diagnosed 50-60 years ago and perhaps it is unknown if they had the thyroid antibodies measured at the time and now they’re saying, “Do I actually have Hashimoto’s?” or “Do I really need to continue this for the rest of my life?” I do repeat antibody tests to help gauge if the patient’s levothyroxine can be stopped.
Question: How important is it to follow T4 or T3 levels?
Dr. Tsai: T4 and T3 levels can help differentiate overt thyroid dysfunction — where T3 and/or T4 levels will be abnormal — from subclinical thyroid dysfunction — where T3 and T4 levels would be normal. In general, although we do not fully appreciate the best metric to monitor hypo- or hyperthyroidism, because some patients with a normal TSH level still may have symptoms of thyroid dysfunction, these peripheral thyroid hormone levels are usually the most helpful at the time of initial diagnosis.
Question: What are your criteria for initiating treatment for hypothyroidism?
Dr. Tsai: If the TSH level > 10 mIU/L, I recommend levothyroxine hormone replacement. A lot of published data support clinical benefit in this group.
There is a gray area in those patients who have a TSH level higher than the upper limit of the reference range but less than 10. If the patient doesn’t have overt hypothyroid symptoms, I discuss the findings with the patient but don’t really feel eager to treat. I recommend checking the levels again in 6 months to see where that TSH goes, and if it worsens or becomes greater than 10 mIU/L, I then recommend levothyroxine hormone replacement.
It is also important to note that a TSH level of 5-7 may be an acceptable range for older patients, and they do not require levothyroxine.
The other category is patients whose TSH level is greater than the upper limit of the normal reference range but less than 10 and with overt hypothyroid symptoms such as fatigue, unintentional weight gain, constipation, or cold intolerance. In these patients, it is worthwhile to try a low dose of levothyroxine (25-50 mcg/d) and repeat TSH and free T4 tests in 6-8 weeks and see if the TSH level normalizes.
Dr. Leung: When you look at subclinical hypothyroidism, the situation of an isolated high TSH level in the setting of normal T4 levels, if the TSH level is mildly elevated in the 5-7 mIU/L range, there’s a 60% chance that it will normalize within 6 months.
Going back to Karen’s point, a lot of people are started and maintained on low doses of thyroid hormone forever and ever. A recent study on levothyroxine use found half of the prescriptions were unnecessary.
Question: In an era where many patients obtain much of their health information from TikTok, what’s your approach with patients with a normal TSH level who feel that they should have more testing or start treatment?
Dr. Tsai: Fatigue is one of the common referrals we get into our endocrinology practice, and everyone is convinced that their thyroid is the culprit. It is important to note, however, that fatigue can be due to different diseases such as anemia, depression, sleep disorders, or a recent viral illness.
TSH tests are readily available and cheap. I don’t mind ordering the lab test again if it helps give the patient some reassurance. I also find that patients are relieved once they hear from their endocrinologist that their thyroid is unlikely to be the cause of their fatigue.
Some other endocrine causes we may consider additionally working up include adrenal insufficiency, vitamin D deficiency, and diabetes. A comprehensive metabolic panel and complete blood count is part of my workup to rule out any gross electrolyte abnormalities or any new diagnosis of anemia, liver disease, or chronic kidney disease.
Question: What are your criteria for recommending that someone see an endocrinologist?
Dr. Tsai: Our primary care colleagues can do a workup and interpretation of thyroid function tests in most cases. In the situations where the thyroid function test results are discordant (ie, elevated TSH and elevated free T4 levels or low TSH and low free T4 levels) or difficult to interpret, it would be appropriate to refer the patient to an endocrinologist.
One of the common referrals that we do get from the community is a patient’s thyroid function tests going from hyperthyroid to hypothyroid without a clear explanation or the patient is suboptimally controlled with levothyroxine or methimazole. In those circumstances, it would be worthwhile to send to an endocrinologist try to discern an underlying cause or for optimization of medication.
Dr. Leung and Dr. Tsai had no financial disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
If you’re like most primary care clinicians, your email inbox is flooded with messages from patients with questions about lab results. A common query: Should I be worried about an abnormal value on a test of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH)?
For guidance, this news organization spoke with Angela Leung, MD, associate professor of medicine in the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism at the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine and an endocrinologist at UCLA and the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, and Karen Tsai, MD, assistant clinical professor of endocrinology at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, California. The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Question: Why do you usually start by measuring TSH levels?
Dr. Leung: We need to measure the thyroid status in a way that integrates more information about the long-term thyroid status and not small changes in thyroid hormone levels. TSH is made by the pituitary gland in the brain, which integrates information about the signals of high and low levels from each of the different thyroid hormones.
Now we can measure the actual thyroid hormones — primarily we’re talking about T3 and T4 — but if we do that, we are relying on a single snapshot in the bloodstream at that moment. The levels might change throughout the day in response to ongoing metabolism and outside stresses. So we usually start by measuring the TSH level, which is a good representation of the compilation of all those things over the past 30 days or so.
Question: How do you describe a low TSH result to patients?
Dr. Leung: Whenever we encounter a low TSH level, we want to repeat the test because it is a dynamic test, and it can change in response to several factors. If it is indeed low, we’re thinking that perhaps there’s a little bit of extra thyroid hormone in the body. It can be either temporary or more chronic, but that higher amount of thyroid hormone is telling the pituitary gland in the brain to start making less. So TSH levels go low when we need less thyroid hormone.
Question: What are some of the reasons for a low TSH level?
Dr. Leung: One of the most common situations for a temporarily low TSH level I see is what we call nonthyroidal illness, like a common cold or just being under the weather. Other things that can artifactually lower the TSH level could be the use of steroids, such as prednisone for asthma or some sort of a rheumatologic condition. Also, the TSH level could be low if a person has been recently exposed to very high amounts of iodine, such as iodinated contrast needed for a CT scan.
If the TSH level remains persistently low, usually in the presence of high thyroid hormone (T3 and/or T4) levels, the most common reason for hyperthyroidism is Graves disease, in which there are autoantibodies — measurable in the blood — that can stimulate the thyroid gland in the neck to make extra thyroid hormone.
Question: And what does an elevated TSH level mean?
Dr. Leung: Again, we want to confirm that it is elevated. We need at least two tests to confirm a high TSH level. A persistently elevated TSH level is a signal there might be low thyroid hormone levels in the body, which could be transient or more longer lasting.
Question: What are some of the most common causes of an elevated TSH level?
Dr. Leung: If the TSH level is confirmed high and the thyroid hormone levels are low, the most common cause of hypothyroidism here in the United States is Hashimoto thyroiditis.
Globally, iodine deficiency is the most common reason for hypothyroidism and may be a problem in parts of the globe where there are endemically low iodine levels in soil, crops, and the food supply like not having enough iodized salt. The thyroid is reliant on having enough iodine as a micronutrient to make thyroid hormone. If it doesn’t, the thyroid really can’t make thyroid hormone. It’s important to also remember, though, that having too much iodine can result in hypo- or hyperthyroidism.
Dr. Tsai: I take a glance at their medication list. Some of the patients are on methimazole or levothyroxine, and those medications should be adjusted first to normalize the TSH level. Other medications like lithium and amiodarone can also cause elevated TSH levels. We are also seeing a lot of patients on cancer therapies, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapy, that can cause an elevated TSH level.
Question: If the repeat TSH test shows that TSH levels are still elevated, what comes next in your workup?
Dr. Tsai: If there’s not a real clear-cut diagnosis, I’ll order the thyroid peroxidase antibody and the thyroglobulin antibody, although thyroid peroxidase antibody, which is indicative of autoimmune thyroid disease, alone is usually sufficient to make that diagnosis.
Question: Should clinicians follow thyroid antibodies over time?
Dr. Tsai: I usually don’t repeat the antibody tests. In those circumstances where patients who were diagnosed 50-60 years ago and perhaps it is unknown if they had the thyroid antibodies measured at the time and now they’re saying, “Do I actually have Hashimoto’s?” or “Do I really need to continue this for the rest of my life?” I do repeat antibody tests to help gauge if the patient’s levothyroxine can be stopped.
Question: How important is it to follow T4 or T3 levels?
Dr. Tsai: T4 and T3 levels can help differentiate overt thyroid dysfunction — where T3 and/or T4 levels will be abnormal — from subclinical thyroid dysfunction — where T3 and T4 levels would be normal. In general, although we do not fully appreciate the best metric to monitor hypo- or hyperthyroidism, because some patients with a normal TSH level still may have symptoms of thyroid dysfunction, these peripheral thyroid hormone levels are usually the most helpful at the time of initial diagnosis.
Question: What are your criteria for initiating treatment for hypothyroidism?
Dr. Tsai: If the TSH level > 10 mIU/L, I recommend levothyroxine hormone replacement. A lot of published data support clinical benefit in this group.
There is a gray area in those patients who have a TSH level higher than the upper limit of the reference range but less than 10. If the patient doesn’t have overt hypothyroid symptoms, I discuss the findings with the patient but don’t really feel eager to treat. I recommend checking the levels again in 6 months to see where that TSH goes, and if it worsens or becomes greater than 10 mIU/L, I then recommend levothyroxine hormone replacement.
It is also important to note that a TSH level of 5-7 may be an acceptable range for older patients, and they do not require levothyroxine.
The other category is patients whose TSH level is greater than the upper limit of the normal reference range but less than 10 and with overt hypothyroid symptoms such as fatigue, unintentional weight gain, constipation, or cold intolerance. In these patients, it is worthwhile to try a low dose of levothyroxine (25-50 mcg/d) and repeat TSH and free T4 tests in 6-8 weeks and see if the TSH level normalizes.
Dr. Leung: When you look at subclinical hypothyroidism, the situation of an isolated high TSH level in the setting of normal T4 levels, if the TSH level is mildly elevated in the 5-7 mIU/L range, there’s a 60% chance that it will normalize within 6 months.
Going back to Karen’s point, a lot of people are started and maintained on low doses of thyroid hormone forever and ever. A recent study on levothyroxine use found half of the prescriptions were unnecessary.
Question: In an era where many patients obtain much of their health information from TikTok, what’s your approach with patients with a normal TSH level who feel that they should have more testing or start treatment?
Dr. Tsai: Fatigue is one of the common referrals we get into our endocrinology practice, and everyone is convinced that their thyroid is the culprit. It is important to note, however, that fatigue can be due to different diseases such as anemia, depression, sleep disorders, or a recent viral illness.
TSH tests are readily available and cheap. I don’t mind ordering the lab test again if it helps give the patient some reassurance. I also find that patients are relieved once they hear from their endocrinologist that their thyroid is unlikely to be the cause of their fatigue.
Some other endocrine causes we may consider additionally working up include adrenal insufficiency, vitamin D deficiency, and diabetes. A comprehensive metabolic panel and complete blood count is part of my workup to rule out any gross electrolyte abnormalities or any new diagnosis of anemia, liver disease, or chronic kidney disease.
Question: What are your criteria for recommending that someone see an endocrinologist?
Dr. Tsai: Our primary care colleagues can do a workup and interpretation of thyroid function tests in most cases. In the situations where the thyroid function test results are discordant (ie, elevated TSH and elevated free T4 levels or low TSH and low free T4 levels) or difficult to interpret, it would be appropriate to refer the patient to an endocrinologist.
One of the common referrals that we do get from the community is a patient’s thyroid function tests going from hyperthyroid to hypothyroid without a clear explanation or the patient is suboptimally controlled with levothyroxine or methimazole. In those circumstances, it would be worthwhile to send to an endocrinologist try to discern an underlying cause or for optimization of medication.
Dr. Leung and Dr. Tsai had no financial disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.